Appeal No. 2003-2081
Application No. 09/893,931
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 9.
From our review of the examiner’s rejection, we agree with the examiner and find
that the examiner has initially established a prima facie case of obviousness of the
invention as recited in the language of independent claim 9. (See answer at pages 3-
7.)
Appellants argue that Hoppe, Jr. does not adequately restrict loose longitudinal
movement of the wire that could be generated in response to longitudinal forces
exerted on the wire. (See brief at page 5.) We find no express or implied support for
appellants’ specific argument to longitudinal movement and longitudinal forces.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007