Appeal No. 2002-1147 Page 4
Application No. 09/305,799
562 (CCPA 1972). Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to modify a
reference may flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved,
see Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d
1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996), Para-Ordinance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l., Inc., 73
F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 80
(1996), 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. That is, the showing must be clear and particular. See, e.g., C.R.
Bard Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1352, 48 USPQ2d 1225, 1232 (Fed. Cir.
1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1804 (1999). 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007