Ex parte STARON - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1997-1188                                       Page 5           
          Application No. 08/035,969                                                  


          1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,               
          1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).                                        


               Evidence 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."  See              







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007