Appeal No. 98-1242 Page 7
Application No. 08/498,884
Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993)). This is not to say, however, that the claimed
invention must expressly be suggested in any 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 Electric Products,
Inc. 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)), with skill
being presumed on the part of the artisan, rather than the lack
thereof (see In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir. 1985)). 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,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007