Appeal No. 98-1457 Page 13
Application No. 08/530,006
STAAB, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
The majority implies that the reason they find the
examiner's rejections to be lacking is because the various
secondary references applied by the examiner in rejecting the
claims do not disclose the use of an I-shaped cross-sectional
configuration and thermoplastic material in the specific
environment called for in the appealed claims, namely, a
vehicular wheel suspension link. There are several flaws in
the sort of analysis, if that is what they meant. For
example, it does not properly consider what the combined
teachings of the applied references would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art , nor does it take into1
account the baseline knowledge that a person of ordinary skill
in the art is presumed to possess in approaching the question
of obviousness .2
1See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
2See, for example, In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135
USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962)(artisan presumed to know something
about art apart from what references teach) and In re Sovish,
769 F.2d 738, 226 USPQ 771 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(skill in the art
presumed, rather than the converse).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007