Appeal No. 2004-2282 4
Application No. 09/989,555
Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Cable Electric, 770 F.2d at
1025, 226 USPQ at 886-87. Further, in an obviousness assessment, skill is presumed
on the part of the artisan, rather than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743,
226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Insofar as the references themselves are
concerned, we are bound to consider the disclosure of each for what it fairly teaches
one of ordinary skill in the art, including the inferences which one of ordinary skill in the
art would reasonably have been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d
961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966) and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Having reviewed the entirety of the applied references, it is inconceivable to us
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have failed to appreciate the role of the
ring or loop of Lacey, Dollman and Coultaus of providing a convenient vehicle for
applying a pulling force to the latch (see, for example, column 3, lines 42-45, of
Dollman). Further, to conclude that such a person would not have recognized that the
benefits of providing such a ring or loop as a convenient vehicle for applying a pulling
force apply equally to a springless latch wherein the latch is manually pulled in either
direction would be to improperly assume that the artisan possesses less than ordinary
skill. Sovish, 769 F.2d at 743, 226 USPQ at 774.
For the foregoing reasons, the arguments in appellant’s request for rehearing fail
to persuade us that we committed any error in affirming the examiner’s decision. Thus,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007