Appeal No. 96-1268
Application 08/013,739
Therefore, we fail to find that the references teach or suggest the method steps iv as
recited in Appellant’s claim 7. Furthermore, we note that the other claims have this limitation
because of their dependency upon claim 7. 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
common knowledge 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).
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 7 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
) APPEALS AND
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007