Appeal No. 95-2911
Application 07/814,693
groove 21 of the feed screw. Thus, Kato does not teach the above
limitations recited in Appellant’s claim 5. Furthermore, the
Examiner agrees that Kato does not meet the above limitations
recited in Appellant’s claim 5. In particular, the Examiner
states on page 6 of the answer that Kato does not teach the
following:
A...a thread groove engaging member as being wedge
shaped with flat sides, B...that the carriage and the
thread groove engaging member are formed as a unitary
member C...that the carriage and the thread groove
engaging member are formed press-worked sheet metal.
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 unquestion-
able 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). Therefore,
we will not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 8 through 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda and Kato.
Claims 5 and 8 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, Aruga, Tanaka and Inoue.
Appellant argues on pages 6 and 7 of the brief and the reply
brief that Kato, Aruga, Tanaka and Inoue, together or individ-
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007