Appeal No. 2001-1514 Page 5
Application No. 08/874,805
Mogaki, the socket 47 and the distributor 261 are not integrally formed as a unitary
piece (i.e., one-piece). While Mogaki teaches (column 4, lines 51-56) that the socket
47 is united with the stationary valve member 42, and the through-holes 46 separately
communicate with openings 48 in socket 47, Mogaki does not teach or suggest that the
socket 47 and the stationary valve member 42 be integrally formed as a unitary piece.
Thus, Mogaki would not have made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to have integrally formed Arkans' manifold 96 and
connector member 124 as a unitary piece. Accordingly, in the rejection of claim 1
before us in this appeal, the examiner has not set forth evidence of a suggestion,
teaching, or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to have modified Arkans to arrive at the claimed invention. In that regard, we
note that a broad conclusory statement (such as set forth on page 6 of the answer)
regarding the obviousness of modifying a reference, standing alone, is not "evidence."
Thus, when an examiner relies on general knowledge to negate patentability, that
knowledge must be articulated and placed on the record. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d
1338, 1342-45, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-35 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See also In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
1 Distributor 26 includes a d.c. motor 38, a rotary valve member 41 and a stationary valve
member 42 brought into plane contact with the upper surface of the rotary valve member 41. The
stationary valve member 42 is provided in the vicinity of the outer periphery with eight vertical
through-holes 46 at regular intervals, which communicate alternately with an air-guiding groove 45
provided in rotary valve member 41.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007