Ex Parte Hammond - Page 5




                Appeal No. 2005-1023                                                                                  Page 5                    
                Application No. 09/963,734                                                                                                      



                not been supported by any evidence2 that would have led an artisan to arrive at the                                             
                claimed invention.  In our view, there is no suggestion in the applied prior art for                                            
                modifying Campiglia in the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted                                              
                limitations.                                                                                                                    


                         The examiner is correct that it would have been obvious to an artisan to take                                          
                emergency priorities into account when arranging the items being placed into                                                    
                Compiglia's three large vertically disposed pockets formed by partitions 12 and 14.                                             
                However, this still does not suggest the claimed arrangement of first aid packs.  To deal                                       

                         2Evidence 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