Appeal No. 2002-1043
Application 08/784,860
60 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “It must be based on
objective evidence of record.” Id. “Broad conclusory statements,
regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone,
are note ‘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.” Dembizak, 175 F.3d at 1000, 50 USPQ2d at 1617,
citing McElmurry v. Ark. Power & Light Co. 995 F.2d 1576, 1578,
27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Federal Circuit states that, “[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification.” In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In addition, our reviewing court stated
in In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433 (Fed.
Cir. 2002), that when make an obviousness rejection based on
combination, “there must be some motivation, suggestion of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007