Appeal No. 1997-3851
Application No. 08/355,210
the data disks from inputting and outputting data to the
optical disk drive 6.
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). Furthermore, our reviewing
court states in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ
785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 148 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 459, . . . (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 place the “burden of proof on the
Patent Office which requires it to produce the
factual basis for its rejection of an application
under sections 102 and 103". [Citing] In re Warner,
54 C.C.P.A. 1628, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016, 154 U.S.P.Q.
(BNA) 173, 177 (CCPA 1967).
Upon our review of Dishon and Satoh, we fail to find that
either of these references teaches “a write data storage means
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007