Appeal No. 2000-1359 Page 8
Application No. 08/351,613
226 USPQ 881, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), considering that 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
Bozak, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)), with skill being
presumed on the part of the artisan, rather than the lack thereof (see In re Sovish,
769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Insofar as the references
themselves are concerned, we are bound to consider the disclosure of each 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 Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507,
510 (CCPA 1966) and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA
1968)).
Dependent claims 82-84 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Plechinger in
view of Wallach. Claim 82 requires that the high pressure fluid source be a positive-
displacement piston pump, claim 83 adds to claim 82 that the flow be a "largely
pulsatile or periodic unsteady flow,” and claim 84 adds to claim 82 the requirement that
the flow be “largely steady.” The examiner applies Wallach for its teaching of utilizing a
selectively adjustable piston pump to provide high pressure fluid jets used to cut
through unwanted tissue on the lens of an eye, concluding that it would have been
obvious to utilize the Wallach pump with the Plechinger device (Answer, page 4). We
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007