Appeal No. 1998-0923
Application No. 08/514,718
Turning to a consideration of independent claim 5, drawn
to a method of assembling a fluorescent display device, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of this
claim as well. Although the disclosure of Morimoto is
directed solely to the final fluorescent display device, the
Examiner, nevertheless, concludes that the assembling steps in
appealed claim 5 would necessarily be present in Morimoto. We
find, however, as asserted by Appellants (Brief, page 6), this
position of the Examiner to be based on total conjecture and
completely devoid of any support on the record. 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).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007