Appeal No. 1997-1266
Application 08/078,791
suggested by the Examiner. Thus, we will sustain the 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claim 1, and likewise the rejection of
claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17 and 22 which stand or fall
therewith in group I.
Turning to the group II claims with claim 21 as the
representative claim, Appellant argues:
In addition, there is no teaching or suggestion
of energizing the excitation coil with an
alternating magnetic field in which the minimum
frequency is about 1kHz. The maximum frequency
employed in Tu Xuan 600 Hz, shown in Fig. 4, is a
little more than 10% of the minimum frequency
employed in the apparatus and method defined by
these claims. (Brief-page 9.)
The Examiner’s position is:
The specific frequency used and sorting by weight
and size are considered obvious design
considerations since these limitations are old and
known in the art.
(Emphasis added.)(Answer-page 3.)
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 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
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007