Appeal No.2002-1516
Application No. 09/052,744
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. Here, we find that claim 1 specifically sets
forth an interrelationship of a computer and a peripheral hub device and transceivers to
form a wireless USB bus link.
Appellants argue that Burnett does not teach a peripheral hub device with first
and second transceivers which cooperate to form a wireless USB bus link between said
computer and said peripheral hub device. (See brief at pages 4-5.) Further, appellants
argue that Burnett fails to disclose a peripheral hub device including at least a host port.
We agree with appellants. The examiner maintains that the teaching of Burnett with
respect to “using a printer, the use of other similarly equipped peripheral devices will be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007