Appeal No. 2002-0011 Page 5
Application No. 09/179,643
v. International Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (Fed. Cir.
1999). The test for an implicit showing is what the combined teachings, knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) (and cases cited therein). Whether the
examiner relies on an express or an implicit showing, the examiner must provide
particular findings related thereto. See Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at
1617. Broad conclusory statements standing alone are not "evidence." Id. 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).
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 19-25) that the rejection of claim 1 before us in
this appeal is in error for the following two reasons: (1) the space between the outer
wall of Faulman's rotor (i.e., rim 14) and the inner wall surface of Faulman's stator (i.e.,
flange 10) does not form a combustion chamber as recited in claim 1; and (2) it would
not have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill
in the art to have modified Faulman's motor so that Faulman's reaction resistance
members 42 (i.e., turning valves) are rotatably supported about an axis substantially
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007