Appeal No. 1999-2611
Application No. 08/808,537
§ 103 based on Tonai, we do not sustain this rejection as
well. For the reason discussed supra, we find the
Examiner’s assertion (Answer, page 4) that a skilled
artisan would have obviously interpreted the disclosure
of Tonai as describing a nitride containing III-V
semiconductor compound as claimed to be unfounded.
Further, to the extent that the Examiner is suggesting
that, regardless of whether Tonai explicitly discloses
the nitride containing III-V compound, a skilled artisan
would have found it obvious to modify Tonai to include
such a compound, we find no support on the record for
such an assertion. 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, common
knowledge or capable of unquestionable demonstration.
Precedence of our reviewing court requires this evidence
in order to establish a prima facie case. 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).
As a final commentary, we note that, as part of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007