Appeal No. 1996-4070
Application No. 08/367,930
affixing feature is not well founded. As to the assertion of
obviousness with regard to the adding of ID bits to an
extracted message block, we find that the Examiner has not
established that such a teaching is taught or suggested in the
prior art. 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 capable
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). Further, the mere fact that the prior art may be
modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make
the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 n. 14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n. 14 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
With regard to the Examiner’s contention that Anderson’s
storage of messages in an address associated register amounts
to affixing of an ID to an extracted message, we note,
initially, that the Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007