Appeal No. 2005-2515
Application No. 09/911,532
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 999-1000,
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 as recited in independent claim 30. We find that independent claim 30 sets
forth an article of manufacture having alternating layers of first and second polymeric
material.
Appellants argue that Utsumi teaches the use of polyethylene napthalate (PEN)
as having advantages over polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as a uniaxially stretched
PET film for use in a liquid crystal display or for polarizing plates. (Brief at page 4.)
Appellants argue that Rogers teaches the use of PET in a multilayered light polarizer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007