Appeal No. 95-3424
Application 08/143,598
collecting run-off (basin 33). It is noteworthy that Schatz also contemplates an embodiment where the
impact plate encases or surrounds "at least a substantial portion of a vessel or conduit" (see col. 5, line
44-52 and Fig. 4). While Schatz is silent with regard to whether the HF detectors are to be mounted
within or outside of the containment baffle, we agree with the examiner that placement within the
containment baffle would have been an obvious choice in order to maximize proximity to a potential
leak source and thereby enhance detection of any HF leak. An ordinary artisan, in addition to being
versed in the art, is presumed
to have a modicum of common sense. In this regard, see In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738 742-43, 226
USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549
(CCPA 1969).
With regard to appellants' argument that Schatz also does not suggest locating the flood means
(water sprays 93) within the containment baffle, we agree with the examiner that this argument is not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. In other words, as we found with respect to the 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 rejection, the instant claims do not require that the flood means be located within the baffle.
Similar considerations apply with respect to the rejections involving Partridge as the primary
reference. To wit, if one were to apply the teachings of Schatz to Partridge, it would have been an
obvious matter of routine skill to locate HF detectors within the containment baffles of Partridge in
order to enhance detection of any HF leak originating from a source surrounded by the baffles. Again,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007