Appeal No. 2000-0356 Page 10
Application No. 08/825,424
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)). “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, 157 F.3d at 1352,
48 USPQ2d at 1232. Broad conclusory statements regarding the
teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are not
‘evidence.’" Id., 50 USPQ2d at 1617(citing 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)).
Here, the examiner fails to allege, let alone to show
clear and particular evidence of, the desirability of using
stamped ridges shown in the embodiment of Figure 8. Absent
evidence of a benefit of stamped ridges, we are not persuaded
that teachings from the prior art would have suggested
combining the teachings of the various embodiments. Relying
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007