Appeal No. 1998-1472 Page 20
Application No. 08/427,721
using a plane-wave light beam.” Therefore, we affirm the
rejection of claims 142, 143, 151, 152, 166, and 168 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Takeda. Next, we address
the obviousness of claims 142, 143, 151, 152, 166, 168, and
171.
Obviousness of Claims 142, 143, 151, 152, 166, 168, and 171
We begin by finding that the references represent the
level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57
F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference did
not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was
best determined by the references of record); In re Oelrich,
579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("[T]he PTO
usually must evaluate ... the level of ordinary skill solely
on the cold words of the literature."). Of course, “‘[e]very
patent application and reference relies to some extent upon
knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that
[which is] disclosed ....’” In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660,
193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d
538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 424 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons “must
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007