Appeal No. 1999-1759
Application No. 08/749,614
radial and rotational movement of the wafer blade, we observe
that it is not necessary that the cited references
specifically suggest making the claimed combination, see In re
Nilssen,
851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988),
that
a reference must be considered not only for what it expressly
teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests (In re Burckel,
592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979); In re
Lamberti, 454 F.2d 747, 780, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)),
as well as the reasonable inferences which the artisan would
logically draw from the reference (In re Shepard, 319 F.2d
194, 197, 138 USPQ 148, 150 (CCPA 1963)), and that, in an
obviousness assessment, skill is presumed on the part of the
artisan, rather than the lack thereof. See In re Sovish, 769
F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ
771, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appellant's argument that the Board's position that the
motivation to combine the applied references to increase wafer
throughput is "so exceedingly broad as to invite any
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007