Appeal No. 1999-1816 Page 10
Application No. 08/370,540
generally C-shaped frame. That is, Zlotnik teaches that it is
well-known to integrally form a generally C-shaped frame,
while Tisbo teaches that it is also well-known to interlock
three components together to form a generally C-shaped frame.
It is our view that an artisan would have found it obvious at3
the time the invention was made to have replaced an integrally
formed generally C-shaped frame with three components
interlocked together to form the generally C-shaped frame.
The appellants argue that the subject matter of claims 1
and 2 is not suggested by the applied prior art. We disagree
for the reasons set forth above.
In addition, the appellants argue that the claims recite
that the members are of "substantial thickness" and that the
3We observe that an artisan is presumed to know something
about the art apart from what the references disclose (see In
re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962))
and the conclusion of obviousness may be made from "common
knowledge and common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in
the art (see In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545,
549 (CCPA 1969)). Moreover, skill is presumed on the part of
those practicing in the art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738,
743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007