Appeal No. 1998-0085
Application 08/343,540
wherein Mr. Reding indicates that he cannot find a disclosure or
suggestion in the Claus reference that a ATR signal includes
variable data.
Upon our careful review of Claus, we fail to find that Claus
teaches that the ATR signal includes variable data. Furthermore,
we note that independent claim 1 recites “incorporating said
accessed data as part of an answer to reset signal transmitted from
the card to the reader.” Therefore, we find that the Examiner has
failed to show that the prior art teaches this limitation.
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
demon-stration. 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007