Appeal No. 2000-0917 Page 7
Application No. 09/104,763
of the problem to be solved. See Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999,
50 USPQ2d at 1617. In addition, the teaching, motivation or
suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole,
rather than
expressly stated in the references. See WMS Gaming, Inc. v.
International Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355, 51 USPQ2d 1385,
1397 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The test for an implicit showing is
what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved
as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981) (and cases cited therein). Whether the
examiner relies on an express or an implicit showing, the
examiner must provide particular
findings related thereto. See Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50
USPQ2d at 1617. Broad conclusory statements standing alone
are not "evidence." Id.
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied
by the examiner in the rejection of claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007