Appeal No. 97-1223 Page 5
Application No. 08/147,143
not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
invention of claims 1-18, 32-34, and 39-40 but would have
suggested the invention of claims 31 and 35-38. Accordingly,
we affirm-in-part.
We begin our consideration of the obviousness of the
claims by finding the references to 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 the Board
did not err in concluding 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 to some
extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to
complement that which is disclosed therein. In re Bode, 550
F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977). Persons skilled
in the art 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