Appeal No. 2003-0160
Application No. 08/971,320
lead that 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 (Fed. Cir.
1999). "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) .
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope
of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the
limitations set forth in independent claim 1. We find that independent claim 1 recites
the basic structure of the listed pointing devices and includes limitations to a
“housing. . . having one or more illuminated exterior surfaces” and a “user-operable
button.” From our review of the teachings of Stephan, we find that the teachings of
Stephan teach the basic operational structure of a pointing device including a housing
and a functional user-operable button. Additionally, we find that Siefer and Guscott
teach and fairly suggest the use of illumination of at least one exterior surface of a
pointing device. Therefore, we agree with the examiner’s combination and find that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007