Appeal No. 98-1532
Application No. 08/438,533
this on the basis that the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness (see In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993)), which is established when the teachings of the prior
art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject
matter to one of ordinary skill in the art (see In re 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007