Appeal No. 98-0111
Application No. 08/290,213
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Cable
Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1025,
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, 743, 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)).
Independent claim 6 stands rejected as being unpatentable
over Davis in view of Taylor. Here, it is the examiner’s
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007