Appeal No. 2006-1978
Application No. 10/027,572
“broadcast message” system described by Alperovich in which a restricted group
of recipients passively receives a message from an originator falls well short of
what the evidence of record would indicate as being recognized as
“teleconferencing” as claimed.
It is well settled that “the Board cannot simply reach conclusions based on
its own understanding or experience - or on its assessment of what would be basic
knowledge or common sense. Rather, the Board must point to some concrete
evidence in the record in support of these findings.” In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379,
1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1344-45, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 2002), in which the court required
evidence for the determination of unpatentability by clarifying that the principles
of “common knowledge” and “common sense” may only be applied to analysis of
evidence, rather than be a substitute for evidence. The court has also recently
expanded their reasoning on this topic in In re Thrift, 298 F. 3d 1357, 1363, 63
USPQ2d 2002, 2008 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007