Ex parte GRUETZNER et al. - Page 10




          Appeal No. 1997-3129                                                        
          Application No. 08/301,743                                                  

          for such a conclusion.  Similar lack of support on the record               
          is apparent for the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness with               
          respect to the multiplexing feature of claim 9 and the clock                
          circuitry of claim 10.  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 capable of 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 Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148              
          USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).  Therefore, we do not sustain                 
          the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.  103 rejection of dependent claims                
          4-10, 12, 13, and 19.                                                       
               In summary, we have sustained the 35 U.S.C.  103                      
          rejection of claims 1-3, 11, 14-18, and 20, but have not                    
          sustained the 35 U.S.C.  103 rejection of claims 4-10, 12,                 
          13, and 19.   Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting                  
          claims 1-20 is affirmed-in-part.                                            






                                         10                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007