Appeal No. 2002-1404 Page 5
Application No. 08/891,918
although "the suggestion more often comes from the teachings of the pertinent
references," In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir.
1998). The range of sources available, however, does not diminish the requirement for
actual evidence. A broad conclusory statement 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).
In our view, the combined teachings of the applied prior art would not have made
it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have prepared a prepackaged blister pack for providing a therapeutic regimen lasting at
least ten days for treating sinusitis which incorporates (1) a plurality of dosages of an
oral antibiotic effective for treating sinusitis caused by at least one of the organisms
from the class consisting of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilis influenza, and
Moraxella catarrhalis; (2) a plurality of dosages of at least one active treatment oral
medication selected from the class consisting of decongestant, expectorant, mucolytic,
anti-inflammatory agent, cell stabilizer, and mediator antagonist; and (3) instructions for
coordinating use of the dosages together. In that regard, we see no motivation,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007