Appeal No. 1997-4077
Application No. 08/441,989
coupling members 1 and 2 would have suggested the use of a
metal with sufficient strength to withstand the shear and
compressive stresses necessarily created when the nut 4 is
“tightened with a wrench or other tool” (Shinohara, page 5).
It is undisputed that stainless steel was well known in the
art at the time of appellants’ invention for its superior
strength and resistance to corrosion and, specifically, for
its use in the manufacture of tubular coupling members such as
shown by Shinohara. In light of Shinohara’s teaching, one of6
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select
stainless steel for manufacturing the
first and second coupling members in order to obtain the self-
evident advantages of that particular material. In this
regard, we observe that an artisan must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what the references
disclose (see In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317,
319 (CCPA 1962)) and the conclusion of obviousness may be made
from "common knowledge and common sense" of the person of
Appellants even acknowledge that it was well known in the art prior6
to their invention to manufacture tubular joint members in a pipe coupling of
stainless steel (see, for example, appellants’ specification, page 1, lines 5
and 6).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007