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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007