Appeal No. 99-0210
Application 08/732,285
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, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510
(CCPA 1966) and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342,
344 (CCPA 1968)).
Claim 14 stands rejected as being unpatentable over
German ‘283. It is the examiner’s position that the use of
thermoplastic rubber material for the elastic sealing
apparatus, the feature added to claim 13 by claim 14, would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007