Appeal No. 2001-1739
Application 08/892,903
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.. 2002).
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).
We find that Brock does teach a sleeve 38 shown in figure 1
used for slideably forming the optical tube 16. See column 4,
lines 51 through 64, of Brock. Furthermore, we find that
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007