Appeal No. 1998-2029 Page 12
Application No. 08/258,643
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, in
evaluating such references it is proper to take into account
not only the specific teachings of the references but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Moreover, skill is presumed on
the part of those practicing in the art. See In re Sovish,
769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It is our opinion that Morris suggests a device having a
pouch capable of being sealed in a fluid tight manner to allow
disposal of the drape. In that regard, Morris teaches that
the purpose of the adhesive surface is to allow the fluid
collection bag to be sealed after the completion of the
surgical procedure so that the fluid will not escape from the
bag as the drape is being removed from the patient. The
appellant's position that the drawings of Morris indicate that
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007