Appeal No. 1999-1816 Page 13
Application No. 08/370,540
socket receptacles. In that regard, while the claimed "ramp
means" is readable on Tisbo's sloped portion 118 which guides
projection 126, there is no evidence in the applied prior art 5
which would have suggested redesigning Tisbo's projection spar
116 so that it does not deflect while redesigning projection
126 so that it does deflect (i.e., compress).
5Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to
modify a reference may flow from the prior art references
themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill 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). See also
In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed.
Cir. 1999).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007