Appeal No. 95-2219
Application 08/041,922
provides a broad unsupported general conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner has failed to provide
any teaching whatsoever, other than Appellants’ specification,
that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Brown to provide Appellant’s claimed processor.
We agree. 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, common knowledge or capable 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).
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 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be established using
hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the
inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007