Appeal No. 1999-2064 Page 11
Application No. 08/619,853
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 5-6) only that the
limitation that the substrate surface is "devoid of a
camouflage pattern" is not obvious from Mowry's claim 12 since
parent claim 11 of Mowry specifically recites "a camouflage
pattern." We do not agree. In our view, it would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to omit Mowry's camouflage pattern
and its associated function for the self evident advantages
thereof (e.g., cheaper to manufacture). We reach this
conclusion of obviousness based upon the basic principle that
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., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories,
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). That is, the
question of obviousness in this instance cannot be approached
on the basis than an artisan having ordinary skill would have
known only the subject matter of Mowry's claim 12, because
such artisan is presumed to know something about the art apart
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007