Appeal No. 1998-1493
Application No. 08/377,861
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)), with skill being presumed on
the part of the artisan, rather than the lack thereof (see 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, 344
(CCPA 1968).
According to the examiner, all of the subject matter
recited in claim 1 is disclosed by Samejima except for the
swirler. However, it is the examiner's position that the use
of such a device is taught by Aronsohn, and it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a swirler
to the treatment device of the primary reference because of
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007