Appeal No. 2001-1007
Application No. 08/937,025
requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but must also explain the
reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the agency's conclusion." In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). With these
principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent evidence and arguments of
Appellants and Examiner.
When determining obviousness, "the [E]xaminer can satisfy the burden of
showing obviousness of the combination ‘only by showing some objective teaching in
the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would
lead that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references’". In re Lee,
277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002), citing In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “Broad conclusory
statements regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are not
evidence.” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617. "Mere
denials and conclusory statements, however, are not sufficient to establish a genuine
issue of material fact." Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 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) .
Here again the examiner relies on the teachings of Peters to teach accessing a
database, but again the portions of Peters relied upon by the examiner merely teach
the formation of a questionnaire, distribution thereof, obtaining individual responses and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007