Appeal No. 2001-0078
Application No. 08/892,131
rib portion, any such rib portion does not extend into recesses
in an outer shell as set forth in appealed claim 1. In our view,
in contrast to Appellant’s claimed shell recess, Barinaga’s
Figure 2 illustration supports the conclusion that, at best, the
lower skirt portion of frame 46 engages the inner surface of
shell 30 in an interference fit.
Although the Examiner, in addressing Appellant’s shell
recess argument (Answer, page 8), asserts the “notoriously well
known” aspects of such a structure, we find no evidence of record
to support such a conclusion. “[T]he Board cannot simply reach
conclusions based on its own understanding or experience - or on
its assessment of what would be basic knowledge or common sense.
Rather, the Board must point to some concrete evidence in the
record in support of these findings.” In re Zurko, 258 F.3d
1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344-45, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434-35 (Fed.
Cir. 2002), in which the court required evidence for the
determination of unpatentability by clarifying that the
principles of “common knowledge” and “common sense” may only be
applied to analysis of evidence, rather than be a substitute for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007