Ex Parte SHINOHARA et al - Page 6




              Appeal No. 2002-1236                                                                                      
              Application No. 08/359,743                                                                                


              In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied,                           
              389 U.S. 1057 (1968).  Our reviewing court has repeatedly cautioned against employing                     
              hindsight by using the appellant's disclosure as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed                   
              invention from the isolated teachings of the prior art.  See, e.g., Grain Processing                      
              Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792 (Fed.                          
              Cir. 1988).                                                                                               
                     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 (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 999-1000, 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                        

                                                           6                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007