Appeal No. 1997-2046 Page 14
Application No. 08/059,350
1984)). “It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as
an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the
teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is
rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(citing In re Gorman, 933
F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
We also note the following principles from In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999)(exemplary citations omitted).
The range of sources available, however, does not
diminish the requirement for actual evidence. That
is, the showing must be clear and particular. See,
e.g., C.R. Bard, 157 F.3d at 1352, 48 USPQ2d at
1232. Broad conclusory statements regarding the
teaching of multiple references, standing alone,
are not "evidence."
Although couched in terms of combining prior art references,
the same requirement applies in the context of modifying such
a reference. Here, the examiner's broad, conclusory opinion
of obviousness does not meet the requirement for actual
evidence.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007