Appeal No. 1997-0809
Application 08/033,599
communicate). This "inconsistency" is reported to the
network manager 30.
For these reasons, Appellants have not shown any error
in the Examiner's finding of anticipation. The anticipation
rejection of claim 13 is sustained.
Obviousness
We find the references to be representative of the
level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Oelrich,
579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("the PTO
usually must evaluate both the scope and content of the
prior art and the level of ordinary skill solely on the cold
words of the literature"); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (the Board did
not err in adopting the approach that the level of skill in
the art was best determined by the references of record).
Obviousness is determined through the eyes of one of
ordinary skill in the art and one of ordinary skill in the
art must be presumed to know something about the art apart
from what the references expressly disclose. See
In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA
1962); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447-48,
- 12 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007