Appeal No. 1999-0347 Page 13
Application No. 08/804,635
in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem
to be solved, see Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics,
Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir.
1996), Para-Ordinance Mfg. v. SGS Imports Intern., Inc., 73
F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
although "the suggestion more often comes from the teachings
of the pertinent references," In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350,
1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The range of
sources available, however, does not diminish the requirement
for actual evidence. That is, the showing must be clear and
particular. See, e.g., C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157
F.3d 1340, 1352, 48 USPQ2d 1225, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A
broad conclusory statement regarding the obviousness of
modifying a reference, standing alone, is not "evidence."
E.g., McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576,
1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Sichert,
566 F.2d 1154, 1164, 196 USPQ 209, 217 (CCPA 1977).
We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, pp. 14-18,
and reply brief, p. 8) that independent claims 1 and 13 (the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007