Appeal No. 2006-1618
Application No. 10/046,797
by the examiner. Furthermore, apart from appellant's arguments, appellant has
provided no factual evidence on this record proving otherwise. It is well settled
that mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported
by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642,
199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508-09, 173
USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972). In short, the skilled artisan would reasonably
expect success if Suzuki and Kim were combined, and the art is predictable. The
examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 is therefore sustained.
We will also sustain the examiner's rejection of independent claim 33.
Because we find that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to provide user input to Kim's system for the reasons
noted previously, we likewise hold that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the user to input information
via a user interface. As the examiner indicates, Suzuki's contour detection
system is computer-based [answer, page 8]. In our view, a user interface to
input such information to a computer would have been readily apparent to the
skilled artisan to facilitate prompt, easy, and accurate data entry. The examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 33 is therefore sustained.
Regarding independent claim 12, the examiner indicates that Kim
discloses, among other things, (1) encoding at least the plurality of vertices in a
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007