Appeal No. 1997-1117
Application No. 08/300,703
resetting of a “keep-alive” means in response to a means for
verifying as required by the claims. The Examiner, aside from
a broad general assertion at page 11 of the Answer, has never
attempted to address how any of the limitations are taught or
suggested by the references. 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, common
knowledge or capable of unquestionable demonstration. Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. 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). Accordingly, since all of the
limitations are not taught or suggested by the prior art, we
do not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims
30 and 31.
In summary, we have sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1-9, 12, 15-29, 32, 33, and 35-37, but
have not sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 30
and 31. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims
1-9, 12, 15-33, and 35-37 is affirmed-in-part.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007