Appeal No. 2000-1612
Application 08/938,844
the structure of the primary reference, nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any
one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what
the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In addition, while there clearly must be some teaching or
suggestion to combine existing elements in the prior art to
arrive at the claimed invention, we note that it is not
necessary that such teaching or suggestion be found only
within the four corners of the applied 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 Boezk, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ
545, 549 (CCPA 1969). This is because we presume skill on the
part of the artisan, rather than the converse. See In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir 1985).
For the above reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Bourassa in view of Thompson. Since
appellant indicated on page 5 of the brief that claims 2, 3
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007