Appeal No. 96-1707
Application 08/221,999
having 2 gaps on the same plane. The skilled artisan would have been motivated, as the
Examiner states, to use this same/similar configuration where other 2 gap systems may be
useful such as in a 2 head device. (See answer at pages 12-14). We find that the
Examiner has not used only bits and pieces of the Jones teachings, but merely used some
of the basic teachings to modify that which was known in the art concerning conventional 2
head devices. (See brief at pages 12-13.) We observe that a skilled 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). We hold
that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
references, and furthermore, the
teachings would have taught or fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to combine the teachings to achieve the invention as claimed.
Next we consider appellant's argument that even if the references are properly
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007