Appeal No. 1997-3181
Application No. 08/304,345
suggestion, teaching, or motivation simply takes the
inventor's disclosure as a blueprint for piecing together the
prior art to defeat patentability--the essence of hindsight.
See, e.g., Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132,
1138, 227 USPQ 543, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“The invention must
be viewed not with the blueprint drawn by the inventor, but in
the state of the art that existed at the time.”). Broad
conclusory statements regarding the teaching of multiple
references, standing alone, are not “evidence.” Id.. 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.”). Here, we do
not find any suggestion or reason to modify Kohler such that
the agents are grouped based on a common skill. We disagree
with the Examiner that grouping of agents in two groups based
on the number callers dial is the same as forming skill groups
of available agents with a common agent-skill indicator as
recited in Appellants’ claim 1. We find that the Examiner
merely made conclusory arguments without providing evidence
and setting forth reasons to modify Kohler based on the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007