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