Appeal No. 2001-0180 Application No. 08/887,421 suggested the stated use or function of the recited grommet means to position the raft under a vehicle and/or tether the front and rear ends of the raft to a stationary object in flood waters. A conclusion of obviousness may be based on common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). In the present case, the examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to add grommets to the front and rear ends of the Curcio raft to permit it to be anchored or tethered to a stationary object is reasonable as a simple matter of common sense in view of the officially noticed old and conventional practice of providing rafts with tethering grommets. Although the appellants are correct in pointing out that the examiner’s rationale does not address the functional recitations in claim 17 that the grommet means are “for positioning said raft under a vehicle and/or tethering the front and rear ends of said raft to a stationary object in flood waters,” the law does not require that references be combined for the reasons contemplated by 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007