Appeal No. 2006-0376
Application No. 09/971,866
limitation of “a grill”, “a main grill burner” and an “auxiliary burner.” Appellant’s
specification provides no special definition for the term grill. Accordingly, we
accept the examiner’s claim interpretation. Additionally, we note that claim 1
does not recite limitations directed to using a separate pot over either of the
burners or that “movement of the auxiliary burner is achieved with a mechanism
having a vertical guide structure” as argued by appellant.
Having determined the scope of the disputed limitations in the claim we
next consider the evidence relied upon by the examiner to support the finding of
obviousness. 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 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Mere
denials and conclusory statements, however, are not sufficient to establish a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007