Appeal No. 2003-0265 Page 8
Application No. 09/105,150
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). To establish obviousness, there must
be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific
combination that was made by the appellants. See In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343,
48 USPQ2d 1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ
1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Even when obviousness is based on a single prior art
reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007