Appeal No. 2002-2295
Application 08/988,457
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 individual to
combine the relevant teachings of the references.’” Lee, 277
F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at 1434, 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).
The Examiner has conceded that the LaPorta messaging system
fails to disclose or suggest a central station that transfers
application software invoked by a mobile unit using the radio
base stations identified from the registration information
received from the mobile units and stored in a registration
database. However, the Examiner relies on Grube for this
teaching. See pages 3 and 4 of the Examiner’s answer.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007