Appeal No. 1996-1561 Page 4
Application No. 08/230,075
OPINION
The guidance provided by our reviewing court with regard
to the evaluation of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is as
follows: A prima facie case of obviousness 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, for example, 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,
for example, Cable Elec. Prods. 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)). Insofar as the references themselves are
concerned, we are bound to consider the disclosure of each for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007