Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
that “the tetrahedron blocks present the same difficulties at
[sic, as] the parallelepiped blocks although in a reduced
degree.”
While it is true that Danel in discussing the prior art
does not expressly mention the exact kind of parallelepiped
blocks, we observe that artisans must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what the references
disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317,
319 (CCPA 1962). Moreover, as we have noted above, the
conclusion of obviousness may be made from "common knowledge
and common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in the art
(see Bozek, 416 F.2d at 1390, 163 USPQ at 549) and skill is
presumed on the part of those
practicing in the art (see Sovish, 769 F.2d at 743, 226 USPQ
at 774). Therefore, we perceive that the above-quoted portion
of Danel would have fairly suggested to the artisan that such
“simple” parallelepipeds would include commonplace
parallelepipeds such as rectangular structures. As to the
provision of the modules having pieces of resilient material
such as tire chips therein, we are of the opinion that such a
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007