Appeal No. 2001-0472 Page 8
Application No. 09/153,951
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.
In this case, the examiner ascertained (answer, p. 5)
that the one difference between claims under appeal and
Sarazin is that "Sarazin does not teach the use of only one2
ball being located in each trough." We agree. In that
regard, it is our determination that the claimed limitation of
"a single ball" in each trough/groove means that only one ball
can be located in each trough/groove.
2The teachings of Sarazin are set forth on pages 4-6 of
the answer and pages 11-13 of the brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007