Appeal No. 1997-0258
Application No. 08/251,052
conclusion. 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, even assuming arguendo that a DC
current path to ground was shown to exist in Hsieh, the
Examiner has not shown how such current path would be
established according to the conditions set forth in the
claims. For the above reasons, we do not sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 7.
We next turn to a consideration of claims 2-4 and 8-10
which the Examiner rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claims 4 and 10 in this group are similar to
claims 1 and 7 discussed above but include a further
limitation requiring a transistor in the reset circuitry to
conduct DC current. Dependent claims 2 (on which claim 3 is
dependent) and 8 (on which claim 9 is dependent) also contain
this limitation. The Examiner, as the basis for the 35 U.S.C.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007