Appeal 2007-0374
Application 09/891,167
references themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the
art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved." WMS Gaming Inc. v.
Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1458
(Fed. Cir. 1998)). "The range of sources available, however, does not
diminish the requirement for actual evidence. That is, the showing must be
clear and particular." In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d
1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d
1340, 1352, 48 USPQ2d 1225, 1232 (Fed.Cir.1998)). "Broad conclusory
statements regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are
not 'evidence.'" Id., Id.
IV. ANALYSIS
Here, Singh "is directed to a message system that forwards messages
to the subscriber such that they [sic] may receive the message in a timely
manner." (Col. 1, ll. 53-55.) More specifically, the reference explains that
"timeliness is important to the subscriber who buys and sells stocks on the
stock market. The subscriber will want to be notified at the time a particular
stock of interest either reaches a predetermined high or low value such that
the subscriber can sell or buy the stock." (Id. ll. 13-17.) As aforementioned,
the Examiner admits, "Singh does not disclose monitoring when and where a
response is transmitted due to the incoming message." (Answer 10.)
For its part, Lemelson "provide[s] a compact, electronic personal
emergency safety warning unit to be carried by persons or provided in
homes, buildings, automobiles or the like . . . to permit transmission of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013