Appeal No. 1998-3413 Application No. 08/512,782 within the four corners of the applied reference or 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 Boezk, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)), this is because we must presume skill on the part of the artisan, rather than the converse. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir 1985). While it is true that Coleman does not expressly indicate that the pot and collar arrangement therein is intended to be used with another pot stored therein, we observe that the method in claim 1 on appeal does not specifically require nesting of the pots, but only sets forth a nesting capability between first and second pots of like shape and dimensions, which capability we consider to be present in Coleman’s pot and collar arrangement and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As for the argument regarding the "different decorative characteristics," we have treated this aspect of appellant’s arguments above in our discussions of the 12Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007