Appeal No. 95-1901
Application 08/088,397
Examiner has failed to show that the prior art suggested the
desirability of the Examiner's proposed modification. Further-
more, we cannot find that Appellants' invention is obvious just
because Milheiser could have been modified to provide Appellant's
invention. This hindsight view is not evidence that those
skilled in the art would have reason to make the modification.
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).
Furthermore, we find that neither Setoguchi, Aggers,
Lichtenberger nor Schwendeman supplies this missing teaching.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish why
one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by teachings or suggestions found in the prior
art.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007