Appeal No. 96-2477
Application 08/345,292
disclosures. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231
USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the standing
§ 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 7, 13 and 18 as being
unpatentable over Hall in view of Henrichsen or Sanders.
Dependent claims 9, 10, 14 and 19, in one form or another,
call for the propulsion module to be detachably secured to the
wing means. While we do not necessarily concur with the
rationale advanced by the examiner in rejecting these claims, we 3
nevertheless agree with the examiner’s bottom line position that
the subject matter of these claims would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s
invention. In our view, the ordinarily skilled artisan would
have readily appreciated the advantages and disadvantages unitary
wing construction and detachable wing construction provide. 4
3On page 5 of the answer, the examiner states that the wings
of Hall are detachable “in that they were assembled to the module
and if damaged they will be removed.”
4In this regard, an artisan must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what the references disclose
(In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962)),
and a conclusion of obviousness may be made from common knowledge
and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art
without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference
(In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA
1969)).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007