Appeal No. 1996-3708
Application 07/474,742
the prior art suggests any reason to modify Engels to provide
a communications bus or a central core which contains an
interface with the communications bus, and an encoder.
The Examiner's assertion in the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections that computer networks are well known in the art,
therefore replacing the host with a network would provide the
claimed communication bus, is unsupported by evidence in the
record. We are not inclined to dispense with proof by
evidence when the proposition at issue is not supported by a
teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common
knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing
court requires this evidence in order to establish a prima
facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 233 USPQ
785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296
F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354
F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore,
our reviewing court states in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d at
1472, 223 USPQ at 788, the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1 (1966), focused on the procedural and
evidentiary processes in reaching a conclusion under
Section 103. As adapted to ex parte procedure,
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007