Appeal No. 1998-2471 Page 7
Application No. 08/222,913
Obviousness of the Claims
We begin 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). We
address the obviousness of claims 1-7, 11, and 22-24, claims
12 and 20, claims 13-15, claims 16 and 17, claim 18, claim 19,
and claim 25.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 22-24
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007