Appeal No. 1999-0478 Page 10
Application No. 08/534,106
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.’" Id., 50 USPQ2d at 1617 (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).
Here, although Edwards discloses periodic subscription
television services, the examiner fails to show clear and
particular evidence of the desirability of using such services
in Kondo’s “audio/video system for entertaining passengers
....” Kondo, col. 1, ll. 12-14. Specifically, there is no
evidence to support his stated reason for combining the
references, viz., to increase flexibility in a fee based
service. More specifically, Kondo does not charge a fee for
its entertainment. To the contrary, “passengers can freely
utilize VTRs 111-115, CD
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007