Appeal No. 96-2712
Application 08/313,548
well as the reasonable inferences which the artisan would
logically draw from the reference. See In re Shepard, 319 F.2d
194, 197, 138 USPQ 148, 150 (CCPA 1963). In addition, while
there clearly must be some teaching or suggestion to combine
existing elements in the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention, we note that it is not necessary that such teaching or
suggestion be found only within the four corners of the applied
reference or references themselves; 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 Boezk, 416 F.2d
1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)), this is because we
must presume skill on the part of the artisan, rather than the
converse. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d, 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771,
774 (Fed. Cir 1985).
With respect to appellants' argument (brief, page 15) that
Clark teaches away from use of a flap by showing a corner slit
(e.g., 6) engaging the edge of the card which the flap also
engages, we note that it is clear from the disclosure of the
Clark patent (page 1, lines 71-78) that the arc slit flap seen in
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007