Appeal No. 2005-2559
Application No. 09/911,017
teachings from the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The column 2 portion of Dimitrova
relied upon by the examiner is, at best, a suggestion, but not a disclosure having the
specificity required by the instant claims.
Further, we cannot substitute our own knowledge for evidence that is lacking in
the record. See In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (in a determination of patentability “the Board must point to some concrete
evidence in the record in support of...[the]...findings”). “With respect to core factual
findings in a determination of patentability . . . the Board cannot simply reach
conclusions based on its own understanding or experience -- or on its assessment of
what would be basic knowledge or common sense.” Id.
We thus cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Dimitrova.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007