Appeal No. 1997-4046 Page 8
Application No. 08/040,117
themselves; 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). Further, in an obviousness assessment, skill
is presumed on the part of the artisan, rather than the lack
thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir. 1985). Insofar as the references themselves are
concerned, we are bound to consider the disclosure of each for
what it fairly teaches one of ordinary skill in the art,
including not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one of ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably have been expected to draw therefrom. See In re
Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966) and In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968).
The first of the examiner’s Section 103 rejections is that
independent claim 11 and dependent claims 16 and 17 are
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Peterson and
Golias. Claim 11 is directed to an apparatus for sampling
liquids which comprises, inter alia, “means for causing liquid
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007