Appeal No. 1999-2095
Application 08/475,624
of the applied references would have suggested the subject
matter of claims 7 through 11 and 25 through 29 to one of
ordinary skill in the art under the test set forth in In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
With particular regard to claims 9 through 11, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the
desirability of storing signals pertaining to jams because
jams are recognized in the APA to be relatively common to
require the machine to be monitored for jams. In this regard,
skill in the art is presumed, not the converse. In re Sovish,
769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the § 103
rejection of claims 7 through 11 and 25 through 29, it being
noted that dependent claims 25 through 29 have not been argued
separately of claim 7. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In re Burckel, 592 F.2d
1175, 1178-79, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007