Appeal No. 2003-0033
Application No. 09/186,546
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
1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the
language of independent claim 1. We find that independent claim 1 recites the use of a
first and a second algorithm on an integrated circuit to decrypt first and second
encrypted data. The examiner admits that Sourgen teaches only a first algorithm. (See
answer at page 4.) Appellants argue that Sourgen fails to teach or suggest all of the
limitations of the claim and the examiner fails to cite any evidence or motivation in the
prior art to modify the reference. (See brief at page 4 and 5.) We agree with appellants
and find that the examiner has not established a convincing line of reasoning for
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007