Appeal No. 1997-2030
Application 08/400,287
by stating that the Appellants argue that Yokouchi's camera scanning area changes when
switching between fluroscopic and radiographic modes. The Examiner argues that there
is no evidence in Yokouchi's disclosure to support this position. The Examiner argues that
Yokouchi reveals specific means for changing the number of scanning lines, frame rate,
format, number of pixels, target voltage, beam current and current control voltage. The
Examiner concludes that Yokouchi does not disclose that the scanning area on the image
pickup surface of the video is different for the fluroscopic mode from the radiographic
image mode.
We must remind the Examiner that it is the Examiner's burden of proof of showing
evidence that the references as applied meet the claims presented by the Appellants.
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 Plasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007