Appeal No. 96-0831
Application 08/191,113
the key factor is not that particular softness/hardness values
are present, but is the relative hardness of the materials used
for the two members. It is our opinion that the teachings of
Olmstead would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
that many suitable materials can be used, so long as the outer
member is soft enough to perform the task of sealing and the
rigid member strong enough to stiffen the grommet to hold it in
position. With regard to this, skill on the part of the artisan,
rather than the lack thereof, is presumed (see In re Sovish, 769
F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), and the
disclosure of each reference should be considered for what it
fairly teaches one of ordinary skill in the art, including not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been expected to
draw therefrom (see In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507,
510 (CCPA 1966) and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342,
344 (CCPA 1968)).
Finally, some of the appellant’s arguments, such as those
regarding the fact that the components are molded, and are molded
in a particular fashion, fail from the outset because they are
predicated upon limitations that are not present in the claims.
See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007