Ex parte VOLLENWEIDER - Page 10

               Appeal No. 1998-2179                                                                         Page 10                 
               Application No. 08/433,231                                                                                           

               first conveyor (belts B1, B2, B3) and the second conveyor (belt B4) of Newsome in a                                  
               substantially perpendicular orientation, a well known and conventional conveying arrangement                         
               as illustrated by Schall, for example, in order to obtain the self-evident advantages thereof, such                  
               as efficient use of processing space and re-orientation of conveyed articles where desired, is not                   
               a patentable distinction over the Newsome reference.2                                                                
                       Turning next to the examiner's rejection of claims 1-11, 14-18 and 21-23 as being                            
               unpatentable over Newsome in view of Reist, Schall and Shimanis, we note that claim 21                               
               differs from claim 12, discussed above, in that claim 21 requires a plurality of first and second                    
               conveying means.  While we appreciate that none of the references applied by the examiner in                         
               rejecting these claims expressly teaches providing a plurality of the running shingle forming                        
               apparatus disclosed by Newsome, we also observe that, while there must be some suggestion or                         
               motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification or                                 
               combination, 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                                 

                       2In an obviousness assessment, skill is presumed on the part of the artisan, rather than the lack thereof.  In
               re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 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 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).                                                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007