Appeal No. 97-1010
Application 08/147,815
character of Ohno is a compound character in need of scaling.
On page 19 of the brief, the appellants argue that the claimed invention achieves unexpected
results. However, the plain assertion is unsupported by any objective evidence. Mere argument by
counsel cannot substitute for evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782,
193 USPQ 17, 22 (CCPA 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 854, 195 USPQ 465 (1977); In re Langer,
503 F.2d 1380, 1395, 183 USPQ 288, 299 (CCPA 1974). Regardless of whether n = 1 or n > 1, it
has not been shown that there is anything unexpected about the results of the claimed invention relative
to that obtainable from the prior art. Unexpectedness, of course, cannot be assumed but must be
established by objective and meaningful evidence. In any event, it would seem that the saving of space
achieved by reducing the size of the coordinate space is logical rather than unexpected.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 18,
20, 21, 24, 25, 27-29, 32 and 33.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27-29, 32 and 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Uehara is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007