Appeal No. 1997-1349
Application 08/520,629
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, 223 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 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 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,
Graham is interpreted as continuing to place the
"burden of proof on the Patent Office which requires
it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of
an application under section 102 and 103." Citing In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1020, 154 USPQ 173, 177
(CCPA 1967).
After a review of the teachings in Kunii, we fail to find
additional mounting means including rear hinges coupled to the
reverse surface of the display. We disagree with the Examiner
that Kunii’s hinge 6 is coupled to the reverse surface of the
18
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007