Appeal No. 1998-0187
Application No. 08/247,518
785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The question under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is not merely what the references expressly teach but what
they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made. See Merck & Co., Inc. v.
Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d
1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)
and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981). While there must be some suggestion or motivation for
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of
references, it is not necessary that such be found within the
four corners of the references 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007