Appeal No. 1997-2439
Application 08/417,701
Upon our review of Frieder, we fail to find that Frieder teaches a translating means or
identifying means. Furthermore, we fail to find that Frieder teaches that the addresses associated with
the I/O bus 102 and the addresses associated with the I/O bus 104 are the same. 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). Our reviewing court states in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ
at 788 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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007