Appeal No. 1999-0890
Application 07/575,096
controller coupled to all these claimed devices.
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by evidence when
the proposition at issue is not supported by a teaching in a
prior art reference or shown to be common knowledge of
unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this
evidence in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132
USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ
268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, our reviewing court states
in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984) the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1 (1966), focused on the procedural and evidentiary
processes in reaching a conclusion under Section 103.
As adapted to ex parte procedure, Graham is interpreted
as continuing to place the "burden of proof on the
Patent Office which requires it to produce the factual
basis for its rejection of an application under section
102 and 103". Citing In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1020, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967).
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 17,
19-24, 26, 27, 53-60 and 70-118 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dunkley when taken with Iggulden. In addition,
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007