Appeal No. 2005-2468
Application No. 09/943,941
employing hindsight by using the appellant's disclosure as a blueprint to reconstruct the
claimed invention from the isolated teachings of the prior art. See, e.g., Grain
Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d
1788, 1792 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
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 as recited in independent claim 1. We find that appellant argues the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007