Appeal No. 2005-0170
Application No. 09/755,650
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. Independent claim 1 recites that “each of said
plurality of wireless access points is configured to generate a wireless signal to cause a
mobile unit in proximity to the wireless access point to generate a response, wherein
each of said plurality of wireless access points is also configured to receive the
identification information indicating the user of the mobile unit.” Independent claim 1
further recites that “one or more past transactions of the user of the mobile unit are
identified, and said first wireless access point transmits information to said mobile unit
that is dependent upon the past transactions of the user.”
The examiner maintains that the teachings of Rudow teach the claimed system,
but for the use of the past transactions in selection or personalizing of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007