Appeal No. 1999-0296 Page 8
Application No. 08/483,552
at 1232. Broad conclusory statements regarding the teaching
of multiple references, standing alone, are not ‘evidence.’"
In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed.
Cir. 1999)(citing McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995
F.2d 1576, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In
re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 1164, 196 USPQ 209, 217 (CCPA
1977). Although couched in terms of combining prior art
references, the same requirement applies in the context of
modifying such references.
Here, the examiner admits, “Robinson, fails to
specifically disclose maintaining spacing between the right
and left objective lenses or cameras(22) at a fixed fraction
of a distance to a targeted object ....” (Examiner’s Answer
at 6.) Although the reference teaches that “[i]t is
particularly advantageous to be able to increase the camera
base as object distances become greater[,]” col. 3, ll. 18-20,
the examiner’s broad, conclusory opinion of obviousness does
not meet the requirement for actual evidence.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007