Appeal No. 2004-1366
Serial No. 10/056,712
Moreover, we agree with the examiner for the reasons
expressed in his answer that Jones provides the requisite
motivation for including an electronic scale as a component of
the Mah system in order to obtain the weight-bearing benefits
taught by Jones. With regard to appellant’s comments concerning
determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art, it is
axiomatic that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill, i.e.,
the ordinary artisan, is presumed to know something about the art
apart from what the references specifically disclose based upon
common scientific and engineering knowledge and sheer common
sense. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 748, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed Cir. 1985), and In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ
545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the examiner is
affirmed as to claim 2, and reversed as to claims 1 and 3-6.
Additionally, we suggest that the examiner consider the
possibility of entering a new rejection of claim 1 and dependent
claims 3-6 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based at least
in part upon a combination of Mah with Jones along the lines
outlined above with regard to the rejection of claim 2 wherein we
noted the strap structure depicted in Figure 1 of the Jones
reference.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007