Appeal No. 1998-3130 Page 6
Application No. 08/626,174
We note the following principles from In re Dembiczak,
175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999)(exemplary citations omitted).
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, 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 single prior art reference. Here, the examiner's broad,
conclusory opinion of obviousness does not meet the
requirement for actual evidence.
The record, moreover, belies the examiner's allegation
about the absence of persuasive evidence that the particular
configuration of the heat slug was significant. The
specification reveals that "[t]he polygonal shape of the heat
slug provides additional space on the top surface so that
capacitors can be added without eliminating vias from the
package." (Spec. at 4.) It further reveals that "[t]he
polygonal shaped heat slug 22 thus provides a package that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007