Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
59. That alone is sufficient ground to reject
Goicoechea’s motion for no interference-in-fact.
Additionally, with respect to Fogarty’s claims 41-
69, Goicoechea is improperly reading into those
claims a specific embodiment from Fogarty’s
disclosure rather than focusing on the language of
the claims themselves. As we discussed in the
context of Goicoechea’s preliminary motion 1,
Fogarty’s independent claim 41 is broadly recited
and imposes no particular manner for the insertion
of the anchor section and the first tabular graft.
Given Fogarty’s claim 41, it is left to the
discretion of one with ordinary skill in the art
just how to introduce the anchor section and the
first tubular graft. One with ordinary skill in the
art possesses a certain basic level of skill. See,
e.g., In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771,
774 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ([Applicant's] argument
presumes stupidity rather than skill). A conclusion
of obviousness also may be made based on the common
sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art
without any specific hint or suggestion in a
- 78 -
Page: Previous 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007