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 apartPage: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007