Appeal No. 95-1994
Application 07/732,493
the court emphasized that the artisan’s own common sense
analysis of the specific prior art relied upon may be properly
coupled with his or her own experience and general knowledge
of the prior art. A reference must be considered not only for
what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly
suggests. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70
(CCPA 1979) and In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ
278, 280 (CCPA 1976). Not only the specific teachings of a
reference but also reasonable inferences which the artisan
would have logically drawn therefrom may be properly evaluated
in formulating a rejection. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 19 F.2d 194,
197, 138 USPQ 148, 150 (CCPA 1963). Skill in the art is
presumed. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir. 1985). The conclusion of obviousness may be made
from common knowledge and common sense of a 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).
Appellants’ apparent focus upon alleged structural
incompatibility of Andermo and Lalonde forces them to lose
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007