Appeal No. 1998-1393 Page 6
Application No. 08/498,306
fall together, with claim 4 as the representative claim of the
group. Next, we address the obviousness of the claims.
Obviousness of the Claims
We begin our consideration of the obviousness of the
claims by finding that the references 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 that the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interference did not err in
concluding that 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 on the knowledge of
persons skilled in the art to complement its disclosure. In
re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977). Such
persons must be presumed to know something about the art apart
from what the references teach. In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513,
516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962). The appellant make two
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007