Appeal No. 2003-0637
Application No. 09/103,414
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." 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 (Fed. Cir.
1999). "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) .
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope
of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the
limitations set forth in independent claim 1.
Appellants argue that Windows does not employ, nor suggest framesets as
described in the present invention. (See brief at page 6 and reply at 2.) Appellants
argue that Windows does not disclose display of documents, but merely displays
information about files stored on a file system. (See brief at page 6 and reply at 2.)
Appellants argue that the examiner’s view that framesets and windows are synonymous
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007