Appeal No. 1997-1208
Application 08/077,219
falls well short of the proxy object emulation of a target
object specified in the claims on appeal.
Further, notwithstanding the “degree” of difference
between East and the claimed invention, we find the
Examiner’s conclusion that the skilled artisan could implement
East’s thread form impersonation in proxy-object form to
thereby arrive at the claimed invention to be totally without
support on 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, 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).
Since, for all of the reasons discussed supra, it is our
opinion that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007