Appeal No. 95-4152
Application 08/042,044
Furthermore, providing insulation around an object which will
be exposed to extreme heat is considered within the common
sense of an ordinary person. See Bozek, 416 F.2d at 1390,
163 USPQ at 549 (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). The rejection of claim 16 is
sustained.
Appellants argue that "Rodway adds nothing to the
disclosure of Hanson and Coombs with respect to the mounting
of the infrared sensor camera, and hence one of ordinary skill
in the art having these three references before him would not
find the combined limitations recited in Claim 16, as
dependent on Claim 1, to be obvious" (Br3). Thus, appellants
essentially argue that claim 16 is patentable because it
depends on claim 1. This argument is not persuasive since we
conclude that claim 1 is unpatentable.
Appellants further argue that the examiner's rejection of
claim 16 is based on impermissible hindsight. We disagree.
One skilled in the art seeking to use the camera and display
system of Hanson in a fire fighting environment (one of the
- 30 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007