Appeal No. 2006-2187
Application No. 10/642,413
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 as recited in independent claim
1.
From our review of our prior decision on appeal in this application
and the claims on appeal, we again agree with the Examiner’s claim
interpretation as applied with the Owens reference and application of the
prior art (Answer at pages 5-6 and 13-16). We find that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness and look to Appellant to show
error in the prima facie case of obviousness or to adequately rebut the
Examiner’s rejection. We find that the Examiner summarizes the proper
interpretation and response to Appellant’s main argument at page 11 of the
answer stating “[h]owever, the language such ‘later manufacturing step’ or
similar language never appeared in the claims 1 and 12. Also, none of the
claims disclose how many steps these surfaces were formed.” We agree
with the Examiner that Appellant’s arguments are not supported by the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013