Appeal No. 2000-1201 Page 7
Application No. 08/817,825
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. at 999, 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, we agree with the appellants that Loiseaux’s
“filter FI is not ‘tuned to a predetermined wavelength’ as
required by Claim 10.” (Appeal Br. at 6.) For his part, the
examiner admits that the “[f]ilter F1 [sic] of Loiseaux et al
does not transmit a predetermined portion of light energy
which it receives at the predetermined wavelength to which it
is tuned as set out in claim 10. . . .” (Examiner’s Answer at
4.)
Furthermore, the examiner fails to show clear and
particular evidence of the desirability of substituting a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007