Ex parte LAFONTAINE et al. - Page 7




          Appeal No. 1997-4415                                                        
          Application 08/469,990                                                      



          Nakao to suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to use                 
          solid state diffusion bonding of a chip to an organic                       
          substrate.                                                                  
               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 1468, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.                 
          1984) 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 place the                       
               "burden of proof on the Patent Office which requires                   
               it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of                   
               an application under section 102 and 103".  Citing                     
               In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1020, 154 USPQ 173, 177                   
               (CCPA 1967).                                                           

                                          7                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007