Appeal No. 2001-1008
Application No. 08/971,097
argues that the Examiner has used Appellant's own disclosure to
provide the motivation for the combination. The Appellant argues
that the Examiner is using classic hindsight reconstruction and
it is improper for making an obvious rejection.
When determining obviousness, "the [E]xaminer can satisfy
the burden of showing obviousness of the combination 'only by
showing some objective teaching in the prior art or individual to
combine the relevant teachings of the references.'" In re Lee,
277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
citing In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783
(Fed. Cir. 1992). "Board conclusory statements regarding the
teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are not
'evidence.'" In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614,
1617. "Mere denials and conclusory statements, however, are not
sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact."
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617, citing McElmurry
v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576, 1578, 27 USPQ2d
1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, our reviewing court requires the PTO to make
specific findings on a suggestion to combine prior art
references. In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 1000-01, 50 USPQ2d
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007