Appeal No. 2005-0090
Application No. 10/057,025
the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in art would
lead that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references.’" In re Lee,
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, 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 11.
We note that claim 11 recites a specific structure which the examiner admits is
not taught by Ramaswami. (Answer at page 4.) The examiner lists six claimed
limitations which are not taught by Ramaswami. (Answer at page 4.) The examiner
briefly discusses the teachings of each of the additional references, but does not
specifically correlate these additional teachings or suggestions to those elements
lacking in the teaching of Ramaswami.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007