Appeal No. 96-2862
Application No. 08/030,704
Hutchison is devoid of Appellants’ claimed “second
portion” which is passable through the hole in the
perfboard. There is no indication that the split
project of Hutchison passes through the board.
Schuplin shows and describes a separate fastener which
is not intended to be, or suggested to be, integrally
formed with any other member. In the claimed
invention, the second portion is “integrally formed
with said base member and said first portion”. [Page
9.]
These contentions are not persuasive.
As to appellants’ contention that there is no indication
that the split projection of Hutchison passes through the
pegboard, Hutchison is a design patent and, hence, obviously has
no written description. However, it is well settled that in
evaluating references it is proper to take into account not only
the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344
(CCPA 1968). Moreover, artisans must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what the references disclose
(In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962))
and the conclusion of obviousness may be made from "common
knowledge and common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in
the art (In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549
(CCPA 1969)). Viewing Fig. 2 of Hutchison, we are of the opinion
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007