Appeal No. 1999-2029 Page 9
Application No. 08/431,360
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).
In this case, the examiner has not supplied any evidence
that would have made it obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have
caused Phelps' substrate (i.e., the helical coil) to emit heat
so the fibers (i.e., the fibrous woven or braided tubular
element or covering) at the interface are secured to the
substrate. The examiner's resort to speculation as to how
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007