Appeal No. 2000-1887
Application No. 08/853,075
arrive at the claimed invention. See also In re Rouffet, 149
F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664,
668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, the Federal Circuit further states that
motivation, suggestion or teaching may come explicitly from
statements in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art, or, in some cases the nature of the problem to
be solved. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d
1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). However, “the Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
After reviewing Horna, we find that the reference generally
relates to an adaptive filter having a first shift register for
storing new samples while the old samples are read into a second
shift register for storing (col. 3, lines 46-55). The adaptive
filter of Horna, as depicted in figure 4, includes first shift
registers 60a and 65a in unit 100 for storing the first samples
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007