Appeal No. 2000-0141 Page 4
Application No. 08/673,693
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-28. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We begin by noting that the references represent the
level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57
F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(finding
that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err
in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best
determined by the references of record); In re Oelrich, 579
F.2d 86, 91,
198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("[T]he PTO usually must
evaluate ... the level of ordinary skill solely on the cold
words of the literature."). Of course, “‘[e]very patent
application and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge
of persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is]
disclosed ....’”
In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977)
(quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 424
(CCPA 1973)). Those persons “must be presumed to know
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007