Appeal No. 2003-0428
Application 09/116,564
Mantha does not teach an address determinator, but it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have an address determinator and to
incorporate an address determinator in Mantha because such a
modification would assist Mantha in locating a new reference
location to another document or file. See pages 4 and 5 of the
answer.
When determining obviousness, “[t]he factual inquiry whether
to combine references must be thorough and searching.” In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
citing McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52,
60 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “It must be based on
objective evidence of record.” Id. “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, we not sufficient to establish a genuine issue of
material fact.” Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 1000, 50 USPQ2d at 1617,
citing McElmurry v. Ark. Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576, 1578,
27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Federal Circuit reviews the Board’s ultimate conclusion
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007