Appeal No. 2000-0467
Application 08/511,645
shortcoming of Berry, the Examiner states that, “Owens et al
teach the determining whether the object is to be copied if the
object has limit access (col. 18, lines 15-21).”
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Further, our reviewing court in In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999-00, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999) has said,
Broad conclusory statements regarding the teaching of
multiple references, standing alone, are not
‘evidence.’ E.g., McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light
Co., 995 F.2d 1576, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (“Mere denials and conclusory statements,
however, are not sufficient to establish a genuine
issue of material fact.”); In re Sichert, 566 F.2d
1154, 1164, 196 USPQ 209, 217 (CCPA 1977).
We note that Appellant’s claim 26 recites the following:
detecting whether access to said first object is limited;
moving the representation of the first object from said
first location to a new location associated with said
second object if said second object is a container
object, regardless of a source of the first object if
access to said first object is not limited; and
prohibiting the movement of the representation of the
first object to said new location if access to said
first object is limited.
22
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007