Appeal No. 2004-0825
Application 09/954,786
reference under consideration contains no teaching of the line
support feature of claim 20.
All of these arguments are tainted by a common
deficiency. In particular, the appellants’ arguments are based
on a perspective which is impermissibly divorced from one having
an ordinary level of skill in this art. See In re Graves,
69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert.
denied, 517 U.S. 1124 (1996); In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681,
207 USPQ 107, 111 (CCPA 1980); In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 939,
133 USPQ 365, 373-74 (CCPA 1962).
For example, it would be ludicrous to believe that an
artisan would interpret this reference as disclosing sinkers made
of tin, steel, antimony, bismuth, tungsten and a turpene resin
putty in combination with one another as the appellants
implicitly urge. Similarly, there is absolutely no discernable
merit in the appellants’ contention that a person in this art is
so devoid of skill that he would be unable to make sinkers from
the materials including bismuth listed in the “Pesticide”
reference. Indeed, all aspects of the record before us reflect
the contrary. We here remind the appellants that it is skill,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007