Appeal No. 1998-3003 Page 16
Application No. 08/589,621
USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The range of 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) ("Mere denials and
conclusory statements, however, are not sufficient to
establish a genuine issue of material fact."); In re Sichert,
566 F.2d 1154, 1164, 196 USPQ 209, 217 (CCPA 1977) ("The
examiner's conclusory statement that the specification does
not teach the best mode of using the invention is
unaccompanied by evidence or reasoning and is entirely
inadequate to support the rejection.").
In this case, the examiner did not make particular
findings regarding the locus of the suggestion, teaching, or
motivation to have modified the prior art reference of
Fuentes. Thus, we agree with the appellants that there is no
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007