Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
In response, Appellants' argue that the Examiner merely
provides an opinion without evidence and that there would have
been a huge leap for one of ordinary skill in the art to mount
the digital camera head to the case. Appellants point out that
the Examiner merely provided an opinion about modifying the prior
art reference. Appellants point out that there is no specific
citation to the suggestion or desirability to modify the Bradbury
reference in the manner suggested by the Examiner. Appellants
point out that the Bradbury reference has no teaching of
attaching the peripheral digital camera to the carrying case.
See page 7 of the reply brief.
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 USPQ2d 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, are not sufficient to establish a genuine issue of
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007