Appeal No. 1999-2068
Application 08/650,038
because it is commonly known in the art to integrate or not
circuit elements into one integrated circuit in order to make
the device more or less compact, and by having the display on
the front
panel of the vehicle, the driver does not have to distract the
view from the road. These statements of obviousness are bald
assertions without evidentiary basis.
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, 1472, 223 USPQ
785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) the following:
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007