Appeal No. 2003-0717 Page 6
Application No. 09/549,118
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." 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 this case, Koenig does not teach either (1) indicator(s) comprising arrow(s) as
recited in claims 1 and 23; or (2) an indicator oriented in a vertical direction with respect
to the display as recited in claims 12, 20 and 26. Likewise, Koenig does not suggest
either (1) indicator(s) comprising arrow(s) as recited in claims 1 and 23; or (2) an
indicator oriented in a vertical direction with respect to the display as recited in claims
12, 20 and 26. To supply these omissions in the teachings of Koenig, the examiner
made determinations (answer, pages 4-9) that these differences would have been
obvious to an artisan. However, these determinations have not been supported by any
evidence that would have led an artisan to arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly,
we must conclude that the examiner has not provided any evidence of a suggestion,
teaching, or motivation to have modified Koenig to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007