Appeal No. 1999-0221
Application No. 08/766,847
1984) The question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not merely what
the references expressly teach but what they would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.,
874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). While there must be some
suggestion or motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art
to combine the teachings of references, 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 1969). Further, in
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 not only the specific
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007