Appeal No. 2001-0865
Application 08/998,781
the combination fails to suggest all the limitations of the
claims have been considered en route to our decision as discussed
above and are not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the examiner never made a finding on
the level of ordinary skill in the art (RBr3-5).
We find that the references are representative of the level
of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86,
91, 198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("the PTO usually must evaluate
both the scope and content of the prior art and the level of
ordinary skill solely on the cold words of the literature");
In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (the Board did not err in adopting the approach that
the level of skill in the art was best determined by the
references of record); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355,
59 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("[T]he absence of specific
findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to
reversible error 'where the prior art itself reflects an
appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.'").
Appellant has not said what he considers to be the level of skill
in the art, how such would be determined to his satisfaction, or
how a different level of skill would affect the outcome.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that appellant has
failed to show error in the prima facie case of obviousness. The
- 11 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007