Appeal No. 96-2854
Application No. 08/119,980
Examiner responds, at page 6 of the Answer:
With respect to claim 2 applicants argue
that examiner speculates, with no evidence, that
Okanda’s system would generate fault by comparing
the previous condition and the present condition of
an exchange office. Though Okanda’s system or
Okurano’s system lacks an explicit showing of such a
fault generating step, generation of a fault alarm
based on the comparison of a previous condition,
which must have been normal prior to the occurrence
of fault, with a current status is a well known
method not just gleaned from the disclosure of the
appellants and thus is considered to have been one
of obvious ways to generate a fault alarm to be used
in Okurano’s system. Further with respect to claim
3, again it is well known that a fault of a system
can be detected by monitoring data to see whether it
is normal or abnormal and thus would have been
obvious if not used by Okanda or Okurano. [emphasis
added]
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, common knowledge or
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 will
therefore not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007