Appeal No. 2001-1578
Application No. 08/771,550
The Examiner points to page 275, first paragraph of Chase. See
page 5 and 8 of the answer.
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). "Broad 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).
Upon our review of Chase, we fail to find that Chase
suggests or teaches to those skilled in the art to provide a
combination of multiple virtual address spaces with Chase's
single universal address space. Chase clearly teaches that the
single address space operating system is superior to the
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007