Appeal No. 2006-0559 5
Application No. 10/085,527
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to hold such parameters constant to the
greatest extent to achieve uniform blasting. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious
within the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103 to maintain at least one basic spray parameter
constant along the contour line to achieve uniform roughness over the entire substrate
surface.
And, fifth, the examiner notes that an engineer of ordinary skill would have
appreciated that a process involving multiple parameters can be more efficiently controlled
by using an automatic control system, citing In re Venner, 262 F2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 192,
194-5 (CCPA 1958). Also, see Dann v. Johnston , 425 U.S. 219, 96 S.Ct. 1393, 189
USPQ 257, 261 (1976).
Significantly, the appellant does not specifically refute any of the examiner’s findings
noted above as regards the rejection based upon Taylor alone. We regard each of those
findings as reasonable and logical presumptions regarding the knowledge and skill
possessed by an ordinary practitioner in the art. Certainly, a person of ordinary skill in the
art is presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references
specifically disclose, and to possess a level of skill commensurate with that knowledge. In
re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 773-74 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Bozek, 416
F2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007