Appeal No. 98-1050
Application No. 08/558,163
one or all of the references, rather, the test for obviousness
is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Cable Elec.
Prods. 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)).
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 1 recites an engine block defining at
least one cylinder bore, a cylinder head carrying a plurality
of poppet-type valves, at least one camshaft journaled in the
cylinder head for operating the valves, air springs associated
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007