Appeal No. 2003-0041
Application No. 09/087,528
that Muszynski does not disclose that the radio signals uplinked from the base to the
exchange are undersampled signals. See page 7 of the brief. Appellants further point
out that Muszynski does not teach or suggest any need to provide undersampled
signals to the exchange. See pages 7 thru 8 of the brief. Appellants further argue that
Bazarjani fails to teach or suggest uplinking undersampled radiotelephone signals from
a base station to a cellular radio exchange. See pages 9 thru 10 of the brief.
When determining obviousness, "[t]he factual inquiry whether to combine
references must be thorough and searching." In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61
USPQ2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2002), citing McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262
F.3d 1339,1351-52, 60 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "It must be based on
objective evidence of record." id. "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
1000, 50 USPQ2d at 1617, citing McElmurry v. Ark. Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d
1576, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Federal Circuit reviews the Board's ultimate conclusion of obviousness
without deference, and the Board's underlying factual determinations for substantial
evidence. In re Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1276, 64 USPQ2d 1801, 1806 (Fed. Cir.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007