--teachings of a reference may be taken in combination with knowledge of the skilled artisan to put the artisan in possession of the claimed invention within 35 U.S.C. § 102 even though the patent does not specifically disclose certain features. --

from Ex parte BESTGEN


It has been held that the anticipation requirement that every element of a claim appears in a single reference accommodates situations where the common knowledge of “technologists” is not recorded in a reference, i.e., where technical facts are known to those in the field of the invention. Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Also, it has been held that the teachings of a reference may be taken in combination with knowledge of the skilled artisan to put the artisan in possession of the claimed invention within 35 U.S.C. § 102 even though the patent does not specifically disclose certain features. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Additionally, because Appellants have failed to rebut the cited specific findings made by the Examiner in the Answer, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.



Like pieces of a puzzle



The skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would be able to fit the teachings of Basu and Luo together like pieces of a puzzle. Id. at 420- 21. Nor have Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).