Appeal No. 2000-2067
Application No. 08/859,278
Cohen-Skalli et al discloses an image processing system
(10) to receive and process scanned information from a
scanner (8), comprising: a central processing unit (13)
to control the transmission of the scanned information;
an image processor (13) dedicated to process the
scanned image information according to a mode selected
by a user . . . .
(Emphasis added). See page 11, lines 5-10 of the Answer.
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 the Appellants’ claim 1 recites the following:
a central processing unit to control the scanning of
said scanner and the transmission of said scanned
information;
an image processor dedicated to process said scanned
information . . . .
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007