Appeal No. 1999-0493
Application No. 08/649,504
or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.
[Citations omitted].” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50
USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Broad conclusory statements
regarding the teachings of the references are not “evidence” but
the showing must be “clear and particular.” In re Dembiczak,
supra.
The examiner finds that the room temperature-curable
organopolysiloxane composition of Yoshino is useful as “electric
insulation,” citing col. 6, ll. 15-16 (Answer, page 3). The 2
examiner makes no finding as to the utility of appellants’
admitted prior art (Answer, pages 3-5), but implicitly the
“known electronic assemblies” (Answer, page 4) use the room
temperature curable silicone composition to produce a force
bearing member, i.e., an electrical connector (see the
specification, page 1, l. 22-page 2, l. 13). On this record, we
find no “clear and particular” evidence or reasoning why one of
2We note that Yoshino teaches a room temperature-curable
organopolysiloxane composition “suitable for use as a material
for imprinting or blocking of form” (col. 1, ll. 10-11),
specifically “useful as a material for imprinting or blocking
of teeth forms and inserts of external auditory canals,
criminal identification, electric insulation, and so on.” See
col. 6, ll. 13-16.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007