Appeal No. 96-0871
Serial No. 08/177,858
to this spacing in the specification. However, when Farrell
illustrates the spacing in the drawing, Farrell shows the
spacings that spacings are much greater than Appellant's
claimed spacings. See Farrell's Figures 1, 2, 8 and 9.
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.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1 and 3
through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's
decision is reversed.
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007