Appeal No. 2005-2569
Application No. 10/200,828
When determining obviousness, “the [E]xaminer can satisfy the burden of showing
obviousness of the combination `only by showing some objective teaching in the prior
art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the 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 999-1000, 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
limitations of independent claim 1. Appellant argues that neither applied reference
teaches or suggests a fan outside an enclosure that exchanges air inside the enclosure
to cool the modular bricks that contain electronics. The examiner maintains that the
fans in Figure 2 of Benavides are outside of the enclosure and that appellant has not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007