Appeal No. 1998-3339 Page 8
Application No. 08/614,459
invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece
together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed
invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re
Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir.
1991)). “The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in
the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification.” Id. at 1266, 23 USPQ2d at
1784 (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
“The range of sources available ... does not diminish the
requirement for actual evidence. That is, the showing must be
clear and particular. See, e.g., C.R. Bard, 157 F.3d at
1352, 48 USPQ2d at 1232. Broad conclusory statements
regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone,
are not ‘evidence.’" In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50
USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing McElmurry v.
Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576, 1578, 27 USPQ2d
1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007