Appeal No. 2001-0305 Page 8
Application No. 09/077,356
suggestion to combine); see also In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1449, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1446-47 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (Neis, C.J., concurring) ("[W]e must look at
the obviousness issue through the eyes of one of
ordinary skill in the art and what one would be
presumed to know with that background.").
Like appellant, we find no express teaching in the Soviet
patent of a coupling having a female part made of one material
(e.g., plastic) and a male part made of a different material
(e.g., metal). However, while the disclosed process used to
form the coupling of the Soviet patent relies on the female
part being made of a material which expands upon heating, the
Soviet patent does not even hint that the male and female
parts used to form the coupling must be made of the same
material. Assuming, as we must, that the artisan had
knowledge of the coupling of the Soviet patent and its
benefits, we believe the artisan would have derived from such
knowledge that it is equally applicable to a coupling between
a metal valve tip pin and a plastic shank portion, such as in
the needle valve 42 of Ament, to achieve the benefits of a
simple and secure coupling. To conclude otherwise would be to
improperly assume that the artisan possesses less than
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007