Appeal No. 2004-0539
Application No. 09/921,254
together in a single burner. In reaching this conclusion, we
have presumed skill on the part of the artisan, rather than the
converse. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir 1985).
In further response to appellants' arguments in the brief
and reply brief concerning combinability of the applied patents,
we also observe that where the issue is one of obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103, the proper inquiry should not be limited to the
specific structure shown by a reference, but should be into the
concepts fairly contained therein, with the overriding question
to be determined being whether those concepts would have
suggested to one skilled in the art the modification called for
by the claims. See In re Bascom, 230 F.2d 612, 614, 109 USPQ 98,
100 (CCPA 1956). Furthermore, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a reference
must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but
also for what it fairly suggests (In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175,
1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 745,
750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)), as well as the reasonable
inferences which the artisan would logically draw from the
reference. See In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 197, 138 USPQ 148,
150 (CCPA 1963).
1010
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007