Appeal No. 2001-0528 Page 7
Application No. 08/892,348
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). That is, the question of obviousness
cannot be approached on the basis that an artisan having
ordinary skill would have known only what they read in the
references, because such artisan is presumed to know something
about the art apart from what the references disclose. See In
re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962).
It is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found
within the four corners of the 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). Further, in an obviousness assessment,
skill is presumed on the part of the artisan, rather than the
lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 226 USPQ 771 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). We are bound to consider the disclosure of each
reference for what it fairly teaches one of ordinary skill in
the art, including not only the specific teachings, but also
the inferences which one of ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably have been expected to draw therefrom. See In re
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007