Appeal No. 2004-1680
Application No. 09/122,741
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. Appellants argued at oral hearing that Maeda
teaches that the printer is placed in a power saving mode (Maeda at page 21) and that
the claimed invention “monitors a state of said spool and when the state becomes a
state where a transition of said information processing apparatus to the power save
mode is to be made, the transition of said information processing apparatus to the
power save mode is prohibited if the print data is stored in said spool.” Therefore,
Maeda does not teach or suggest the control of the power saving mode of the
information processing system, but only the power saving of the printer. The examiner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007