Appeal No. 2000-0339 Page 6
Application No. 08/911,933
for actual evidence. That is, the showing must be clear and
particular.” Id., 50 USPQ2d at 1617 (citing
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1352, 48
USPQ2d 1225, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “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 Petrich discloses a free-standing console
housing “a cathode ray tube (CRT) display 22a as well as a
keyboard 22b,” col. 7, l. 41-43, the examiner fails to show
clear and particular evidence of the desirability of making a
bowling scoring console mobile. To the contrary, the examiner
does not dispute the appellants’ contention that “by making a
scoring console mobile, the power and communication lines
would necessarily and undesirably be exposed where a bowler
could trip over them.” (Appeal Br. at 10.) Absent evidence
that a bowling scoring console would benefit from being
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007