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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007