Appeal No. 2001-1074 Page 10
Application No. 08/989,056
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." See
In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed.
Cir. 1999).
In the rejection of claim 1 before us in this appeal, the
examiner concluded (answer, pp. 4-5) that it would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to (1) use the four port system of
Engelder with the mask of Galleher, and (2) supply four
friction engaging port caps instead of the two friction
engaging port caps taught by Engelder since such is a
duplication of parts.
We agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007