Appeal No. 2004-0588
Application No. 09/387,174
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.
The examiner maintains that Lin teaches most of the claimed invention but for
the at least two objects meet at a junction of at least two routes. (See answer at pages
3-5.) Appellants argue that there is no teaching in the prior art (and no specific
assertion in the Office action) that at least two objects or SIP’s meet at the allegedly
corresponding junction. (See brief at page 4.) We agree with appellants that the
portions of Burney cited by the examiner do not clearly teach that two objects meet at a
junction. Additionally, appellants argue that the examiner has not made a showing of
reformulating a routing decision in Lin would be inherent in the teachings of Lin. (See
brief at page 4 and answer at page 4.) We agree with appellants and find that the
system of Lin is directed more towards adapting the tools and personnel to reduce work
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007