Appeal No. 2005-2744
Application No. 09/849,979
The examiner argues, on page 10 of the answer:
Albrecht is disclosed as an improvement over ordinary monetary
gift accounts. Albrecht uses a financial institution to provide a gift recipient
with a deposit account that is accepted by any retailer (online or physical)
that accepts ordinary credit cards (col. 3, lines 4-6). Based on this
disclosure, one skilled in the art would have appreciated the value of
giving a gift certificate that could be used to buy items at any retailer that
accepts credit cards.
We concur with the examiner. Our reviewing court has stated “[T]he
Board must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61
USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). When determining obviousness, “[t]he
factual inquiry whether to combine references must be thorough and searching.”
Lee, 277 F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at 1433, citing McGinley v. Franklin
Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52, 60 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
“It must be based on objective evidence of record.” Id. “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.
“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). The Federal Circuit states
that, “[t]he mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007