Appeal No. 1997-0373 Page 6
Application No. 08/151,694
means/photo electric sensors. However, these limitations are
not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, none
of the applied prior art even teaches a stencil master plate
sheet. To supply this omission in the teachings of the
applied prior art, the examiner made a determination (answer,
p. 3) that "the sheet is a stencil master plate sheet would
have been an obvious type of sheet" to an artisan to use in
the apparatus. However, this determination has not been
supported by any evidence that would have led an artisan to3
3Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to
modify a reference may flow from the prior art references
themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,
or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be
solved, see Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996),
Para-Ordinance Mfg. v. SGS Imports Intern., Inc., 73 F.3d
1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995), although
"the suggestion more often comes from the teachings of the
pertinent references," In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47
USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The range of sources
available, however, does not diminish the requirement for
actual evidence. That is, the showing must be clear and
particular. See, e.g., C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157
F.3d 1340, 1352, 48 USPQ2d 1225, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A
broad conclusory statement regarding the obviousness of
modifying a reference, standing alone, is not "evidence."
E.g., McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576,
1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Sichert,
566 F.2d 1154, 1164, 196 USPQ 209, 217 (CCPA 1977).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007