Appeal No. 1999-2064 Page 12
Application No. 08/619,853
from what the reference discloses. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d
513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962). 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, 163 USPQ 545 (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, 226 USPQ 771 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 37 and 39
We agree with the examiner that the subject matter of
dependent claims 37 and 39 would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art from the subject matter of Mowry's claim 12.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 12) only that the
examiner failed to establish the obviousness of the claimed
features (i.e., the claimed densities). We find this argument
to be unpersuasive since we find ourselves in agreement with
the examiner's position (final rejection, pp. 3-4) that the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007