Appeal No. 2000-1338
Application 09/107,241
is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings
of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in
the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). As
noted above, Du Plooy teaches that in use the solar water
heater 10 can be either placed on a surface or suspended by
its handles, preferably (but not necessarily) at an
inclination to the horizontal, and that the air compartment 20
is inflated by a foot pump 26 after the liquid compartment 18
is filled by connection to a tap. One skilled in the art
would reasonably be expected to draw the inference from these
teachings that Du Plooy’s purpose in inflating the air
compartment 20 is to pressurize the water in the liquid
compartment 18 to facilitate expelling it. The appellants’
position to the contrary fails to take into account the level
of skill which must be presumed on the part of the artisan
(see In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed.
Cir. 1985)). Along these lines, there is nothing in the fair
teachings of Du Plooy which, as urged by the appellants, would
have led the artisan to conclude that the air compartment 20
has only a “thermal” function, that the liquid compartment 18
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007