Appeal No. 95-3517
Application 08/203,729
do so. We note that such a combination of hardware and software
does not necessarily require the apparatus as recited in
Appellant's claims. In fact, we note that the translation is
normally done by only the central processor and not by providing
the additional hardware for such functions.
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 unques-
tionable 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 Examiner's rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case. It is the burden of the
Examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to the claimed invention by the express
teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007