Appeal No. 95-3684
Application 08/110,273
Krauss teaches or suggests a means for regulating temperature
or a delivery means including a first and second pump of
different pumping capacity. Thus, the Examiner has failed to
show that the prior art suggested the desirability of the
Examiner's proposed 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). We have not sustained the
rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. � 102 or the rejection of
claims 2 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. � 103. Accordingly,
the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007