Appeal No. 1998-2941 Page 27
Application No. 08/061,985
Reexamination Control No. 90/003,682
sources available, however, does not diminish the requirement
for actual evidence. That is, the showing must be clear and
particular. See, e.g., C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157
F.3d 1340, 1352, 48 USPQ2d 1225, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A
broad conclusory statement regarding the obviousness of
modifying a reference, standing alone, is not "evidence."
E.g., McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576,
1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Sichert,
566 F.2d 1154, 1164, 196 USPQ 209, 217 (CCPA 1977).
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 22-24 and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
Rejection (8)
We sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over any one of Dunn, the
News & Observer article, and the PSA abstract as set forth
above (i.e., rejections (4)-(6) above) further in view of
Fioriti and Bracco.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007