Appeal No. 1999-2062 Page 10
Application No. 08/928,311
Cir. 1984). As is apparent from the examiner's rejection of
claims 13 to 26 set forth above, the examiner discussed no
reference or other evidence containing any suggestion or3
motivation to have modified Hunt's grinding roll to arrive at
the claimed invention. In short, the applied prior art
contains nothing at all to support the examiner's conclusion
that the particular methods recited in independent claims 13
and 26 were obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art.
3Evidence 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007