Appeal No. 95-3378
Application No. 08/126,443
known in the art that displaying the two objects
simultaneously while positioning allows the user to
easily see the resulting position.
It is evident that the examiner is of the opinion that all
of the claimed steps not taught by Mortenson are well known in
the art, and would have been obvious to include in Mortenson.
The claimed features missing from Mortenson may indeed be well
known in the art, but we have no evidence of that fact in the
record. The broadly stated conclusions by the examiner can not
take the place of evidence or a convincing line of reasoning that
the claimed invention would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan. The 1989 publication cited by the examiner (Answer,
page 8) entitled “Using AutoCAD” by James E. Fuller has little
relevance, if any, to the claimed features of a “combined model
incorporating both said base model and said sectioning object
model,” and “modifying said sectioning model while simultaneously
viewing said base model.” In view of appellants’ challenge
(Brief, page 8) to the examiner’s failure to cite any “authority
whatsoever for his assertions of features beyond the admittedly
limited teachings of Mortenson,” the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 and 3 through 7 is reversed because the examiner has
failed to make a prima facie showing of the obviousness of the
claimed invention via evidence or a convincing line of reasoning.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007