Appeal No. 2005-2341 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/420,187
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. 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).
Sonehara
Sonehara's invention relates to a system which collects data acquired at a
plurality of controllers disposed within such a construction machine as a driving machine
to carry out predetermined processing operation, e.g., fault diagnosis. Figure 1 shows a
block diagram of a system which collects data acquired at a plurality of controllers
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007