Appeal No. 1997-2075 Page 9
Application No. 08/362,362
to us that the references themselves provide the teachings
supporting the conclusion that the appellant's combination
would have been obvious. In that regard, we note that while
Vaccari teaches a method of laser shock peening a turbine
engine part by overlapping beam spots, Vaccari does not
specifically teach how to accomplish this result. In our
view, one of ordinary skill in this art would have formed 3
overlapping beam spots in one of the following three ways: (1)
by moving the parts past a stationary laser, (2) by moving the
laser past a stationary part, or (3) by moving both the parts
and the laser. Since Vaccari does not specifically teach how
to overlap the beam spots, it is our opinion that an artisan
would have consulted other known methods of treating parts
with overlapping laser beams such as taught by Duley. Thus,
based upon the combined teachings of Vaccari and Duley, we
3An artisan is 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).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007