Appeal No. 96-0555
Application No. 08/156,741
test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art (see Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc.,
770 F.2d 1015, 1025, 226 USPQ 881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985)),
considering that 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 (see In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390,
163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)), with skill being presumed on
the part of the artisan, rather than the lack thereof (see In
re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir.
1985)).
The crux of the argument advanced by the appellant with
regard to claims 8 and 9 is that there would have been no
reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
connector devices of Powell and Vrobel by providing them with
elastomeric material in the manner required by the claims. We
agree with the appellant with regard to Vrobel, but not with
regard to Powell.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007