Appeal No. 95-3998
Application 07/914,904
evidence in the record of showing these television remotes or
that these remotes were known at the time of Appellants'
filing. We are not inclined to dispense with proof by
evidence when the proposition at issue is not supported by a
teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common
knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing
court requires this evidence in order to establish a prima
facie case. In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132
USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148
USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, the Examiner has not provided any evidence
that the prior art would have suggested modifying the Main
housing to allow the user to engage the keys 12 using the
thumb or fingers of the same hand that holds the housing. The
Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the prior
art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification." In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14
(Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007