Appeal No. 96-0380
Application No. 08/229,857
not suggest a second conductor finger to partially bridge the
gap between the first conductive finger and the pad. In
addition, Burns does not suggest or teach a second gap between
the second conductive finger and the pad that is less than the
first gap between the first conductive lead frame finger and
the pad. 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). 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.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007