Ex parte NIJBOER et al. - Page 16




                 Appeal No. 1999-0387                                                                                    Page 16                        
                 Application No. 08/590,278                                                                                                             


                          As to claims 5 and 11, the examiner has not cited any                                                                         
                 evidence  as to why it would have been obvious at the time the4                                                                                                                       
                 invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the                                                                            
                 art to have the securing means at the side margin while having                                                                         
                 the adhesive adjacent to the upper margin.   Absent such                    5                                                          
                 evidence, we conclude that the only suggestion for modifying                                                                           

                          4Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to                                                                         
                 modify a reference may flow from the prior art references                                                                              
                 themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,                                                                         
                 or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be                                                                                
                 solved, see Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,                                                                         
                 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996),                                                                             
                 Para-Ordinance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l., Inc., 73                                                                            
                 F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert.                                                                          
                 denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1996), although "the suggestion more                                                                            
                 often comes from the teachings of the pertinent references,"                                                                           
                 In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed.                                                                         
                 Cir. 1998).  The range of sources available, however, does not                                                                         
                 diminish the requirement for actual evidence.  That is, the                                                                            
                 showing must be clear and particular.  See, e.g., C.R. Bard                                                                            
                 Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1352, 48 USPQ2d 1225,                                                                            
                 1232 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1804 (1999).                                                                           
                 A broad conclusory statement regarding the obviousness of                                                                              
                 modifying a reference, standing alone, is not "evidence."                                                                              
                 E.g., McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576,                                                                          
                 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Sichert,                                                                            
                 566 F.2d 1154, 1164, 196 USPQ 209, 217 (CCPA 1977).  See also                                                                          
                 In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed.                                                                         
                 Cir. 1999).                                                                                                                            
                          5In this regard, if an artisan wanted the helical wire 4                                                                      
                 of Drake to be on the side edge of the pad, the artisan would                                                                          
                 have rotated the pad from its second "normal use" position to                                                                          
                 its first "normal use" position.                                                                                                       







Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007