Appeal No. 2000-1616
Application 08/698,054
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into
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 Bozek, 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).
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 10 through 12 on appeal under
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007