discloses all of the structure that corresponds to the claimed
limitations but does not include all the claimed terminology.
The Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have included the input, output and
expansion conductors as well as the expansion crosspoint elements
as claimed because the conductors and gate drivers of Georgiou
can at least operate as such.
However, after a review of both Georgiou and Franaszek, we
fail to find any teaching or suggestion of the Appellant's
claimed input expansion conductors. 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 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).
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 6, 8, 9 and 18 through 24 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007