CRAGG et al. V. MARTIN V. FOGARTY et al. - Page 91




          Interference No. 104,192                                                    
          Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty                                                  

          pages 14-15:                                                                
                    Second, while Cragg would argue that Sovish and                   
               Bozek are somehow anomalous, the principle for which                   
               they were actually cited in the Decision has been                      
               repeatedly followed by this Board; e.g., Ex parte                      
               Research and Manufacturing Co., 10 USPQ2d 1657, 1664                   
               (Bd. Pat. App. & Intf. 1989)(skill is presumed on                      
               the part of the artisan rather than the converse);                     
               Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 n.1 (Bd. Pat.                    
               App. & Int. 1991) (the ability of one having                           
               ordinary skill in the art should not be                                
               underestimated); Ex parte Nesbit, 25 USPQ2d 1817,                      
               1823 (Bd. Pat. App. & Intf. 1992)(the law presumes                     
               skill on the part of the artisan rather than the                       
               converse); Ex parte GPAC Inc., 29 USPQ2d 1401, 1405                    
               (Bd. Pat. App. & Intf. 1993)(the skill of the art                      
               must be presumed, not the contrary).                                   
                    The Board thus found that the worker is not so                    
               devoid of skill or common sense that he or she would                   
               not have readily recognized that the anchor section                    
               and the first tubular graft may either be separately                   
               inserted and then joined in situ, or inserted as a                     
               unitary whole.  (Emphasis in original).                                
                                                                                     
               Cragg’s citation to Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Intern., Inc.,                
          174 F.3d 1308, 1323, 50 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) is                     
          inapposite.  The Al-Site case does not stand for the                        
          proposition that Fogarty’s claim 41 must be combined with                   
          another prior art reference in order to render obvious a Cragg              
          claim which  corresponds to the count.  In contrast, the case               
          supports the position that the perspective from which a prior               
          art reference is viewed is that of a person with ordinary                   

                                       - 91 -                                         





Page:  Previous  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007