Appeal No. 2006-0562
Application No. 09/952,588
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 recited in independent claims 39, 52, and 55 and their respective dependent
claims. Throughout all of appellants’ arguments, appellants maintain that none of the
references applied teach the limitation of controlling the current flow by the placement
of the bond wire(s) at specific locations. We do not find the argument persuasive since
we find no limitation to the process and no specific location recited which is not taught
or fairly suggested by the prior art as discussed above.
With respect to claims 41, 43, 44 and 46-52, appellants argue that all of the
elements are not taught or suggested and that neither Seshita nor Takubo teaches or
fairly suggests controlling the magnitude of high frequency current delivered to an input
bond pad. (Brief at pages 16-17.) As discussed above, we disagree and find that
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007