Appeal No. 1999-2765 Page 5
Application No. 08/752,396
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
cannot be approached on the basis than an artisan having
ordinary skill would have known only what they read in the
references, because such artisan is presumed to know something
about the art apart from what the references disclose. See In
re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962).
It is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found
within the four corners of the references themselves; 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007