Appeal No. 98-0009
Application No. 08/538,414
226 USPQ 881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), considering that 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 Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545,
549 (CCPA 1969)), with skill being presumed on the part of the
artisan, rather than the lack thereof (see In re Sovish, 769
F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Insofar
as the references themselves are concerned, we are bound to
consider the disclosure of each 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)).
The Rejection On The Basis Of Hoffman And LaBounty
The declipper assembly set forth in claim 1 requires a
pair of plates pivotally mounted in parallel spaced relation,
and an end plate having a curved cutting edge connecting the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007