Ex Parte Hareland et al - Page 15




              Appeal No. 2005-2695                                                                                      
              Application No. 10/280,926                                                                                


              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.”  Id., 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 19 and 26.  Here, we find that the examiner has not                      
              identified how the teachings of Dingwall remedy the above noted deficiency in Kim.                        
              Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case  of                           
              obviousness using the combination of Kim and Dingwall, and we cannot sustain the                          
              rejection of independent claims 19 and 26 and their respective dependent claims.                          



                                                          15                                                            





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007