Appeal No. 1997-3224
Application No. 08/231,531
On page 3 of the supplemental reply brief, Appellants
argue that the invention as claimed includes the element of
"automatically generated graphical representation including
graphical representations of the operations performed . . .
and functional relationships between the graphically
represented operations." Appellants argue that Kodosky does
not teach the automatic generation of "graphical
representation including graphical representations of the
operations performed . . . and functional relationships
between the graphically represented operations." Appellants
argue that Kodosky teaches that the connections between blocks
in the block diagram must be entered by the user as opposed to
being generated automatically as in the claimed invention. We
agree.
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.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007