Appeal No. 97-2720 Page 11
Application No. 08/354,387
variable length sheetpath from DuBois' feedhead (i.e.,
separator 13) to his sheet delivery area (i.e., the main feed
roller 25 of the copier 10).
The argument advanced by the appellants (brief, p. 6)
does not convince us that the subject matter of claim 2
patentably distinguishes over the applied prior art. As to
the argued deficiencies of each reference on an individual
basis, we note that nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See
In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380
(Fed. Cir. 1986). As to the argued lack of a suggestion to
combine the prior art disclosures, it is our opinion that an
artisan would have recognized the self-evident advantage3
3An artisan 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)) and the
conclusion of obviousness may be made from "common knowledge
and common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in the art
(see In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA
1969)). Moreover, skill is presumed on the part of those
practicing in the art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743,
226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007