Appeal No. 1997-3416 Page 7
Application No. 08/339,340
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. v. SGS Imports Intern., Inc., 73 F.3d
1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995), although
‘the suggestion more often comes from the teachings of the
pertinent references.’ Rouffet, 149 F.3d at 1355, 47 USPQ2d at
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)." In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617 (1999). A broad
conclusory statement regarding the obviousness of modifying a
reference, standing alone, is not "evidence." See, 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).
Hence, we agree with appellants (brief, pages 7-11) that
the examiner has not established that the applied references,
even if they were combinable, furnish sufficient evidence to
teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007