Appeal No. 2000-0142 Page 23
Application No. 08/705,569
clear and particular. See, 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.’" Id., 50 USPQ2d at 1617(citing 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)).
Here, although De La Plaza discloses a stable output
current generator, the examiner fails to show clear and
particular evidence of the desirability of using such a
generator in the AAPA’s ballast circuit. Specifically, there
is no evidence that the ballast circuit would benefit from a
current generator having a filtering time constant that is
easily determined. Because there is no evidence that the
ballast circuit of the AAPA would benefit from the
substitution of De La Plaza’s current generator, we are not
persuaded that teachings from the prior art would have
suggested combining the teachings of the references.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007