Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 19
Application No. 08/798,718
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ
560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Evidence 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
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007