Xerox provides no persuasive evidence in Ex parte Wegeng

Obviousness found in Ex parte Wegeng.

Conclusory statements without evidence don't work well at the Board:

In connection with contention 2 Appellants argue “one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to the Wang et al. reference in combination with the Nelson et al. reference to perform a method [according to claim 1.]” App. Br. 13. However, Appellants provide no persuasive evidence in support of their conclusion. Instead, we find that the Examiner has provided an articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to substantiate the obviousness rejection. See Ans. 5-6 and 20. Accordingly a conclusion of obviousness is proper. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We therefore find that Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the motivation for combining provided by the Examiner and conclude that there is no error.