Appeal No. 1999-2370 Page 8
Application No. 08/890,744
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). See also
In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). In our view, the examiner's above-noted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007