Appeal No. 2001-0651
Application 08/134,187
permit inquiry into other areas where one of even limited
technical skill would have been aware that similar problems
exist. See In re Heldt, 433 F.2d 808, 812, 167 USPQ 676, 679
(CCPA 1970).
In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of the respective relied upon
prior art for what it fairly teaches one having ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510
(CCPA 1966). Further, we have taken into account not only the
specific teachings of the prior art relied upon, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw from each disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). In this regard, we note
that we have presumed skill on the part of the artisan practicing
the art here involved, rather than the converse. See In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In considering the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 we have
relied upon the collective teachings of the applied prior art
references to Copley and Bradshaw and, based on such teachings,
must agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007