Appeal No. 1996-1387 Page 6
Application No. 08/110,269
15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 26. Accordingly, we affirm-
in-part.
We begin our consideration of the claims by finding that
the references represent the level of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116,
1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interference did not err in concluding that the
level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the
references of record); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91, 198
USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("[T]he PTO usually must evaluate
... the level of ordinary skill solely on the cold words of
the literature."). Of course, every patent application and
reference relies on the knowledge of persons skilled in the
art to complement its disclosure. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656,
660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977). Such persons 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007