Appeal No. 1998-0821
Application 08/175,319
servo parameters from the system computer to the servo microcom-puter
when a servo command is issued to the servo microcomputer
as recited in Appellant's claim 20.
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 Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); 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, our reviewing court states in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966),
focused on the procedural and evidentiary processes in reaching a
conclusion under Section 103. As adapted to ex parte procedure, Graham
is interpreted as continuing to place the "burden of proof on the Patent Office
which requires it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of an
application under section 102 and 103". Citing In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1020, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967).
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the rejection of claims 20 and 21
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007