Appeal No. 1997-2247 Page 8
Application No. 08/259,798
e.g., C.R. Bard, 157 F.3d at 1352, 48 USPQ2d at
1232. Broad conclusory statements regarding the
teaching of multiple references, standing alone,
are not "evidence."
Although couched in terms of combining prior art references,
the same requirement applies in the context of modifying such
a reference. Here, the examiner's broad, conclusory opinion
of obviousness does not meet the requirement for actual
evidence. His allusion to "time efficiency" smacks of
impermissible reliance on the appellant’s teaching of "time
saving procedures ...." (Spec. at 3.) The examiner fails to
allege, let alone show, that Kuo remedies the defects of
Hardee.
Because Hardee teaches sequentially applying a voltage to
each word line and the examiner has not provided any evidence
that would have suggested simultaneous application, we are not
persuaded that teachings from the prior art would appear to
have suggested the claimed limitations of "an array of storage
cells arranged in rows and columns; ... a decoder, responsive
to a control signal for simultaneously applying the supply
voltage to all of the wordlines of the array." The examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007