Appeal No. 1996-2086
Application 08/255,588
Appellant argues that it is unclear what Fuller means by “thermal deposition” (brief,
page 3). Appellant, however, provides no evidence that this term would have been unclear
to one of ordinary skill in the art. Appellant provides only attorney argument, and
arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence. See In re
De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Payne,
606 F.2d 303, 315, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979); In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185,
1189, 197 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA 1978); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d at 1405,
181 USPQ at 646 (CCPA 1974).
Appellant concludes that because Fuller’s immersion method appears to be solvent
extraction and because it is unclear what is meant by “thermal deposition”, it is necessary
to focus only on Fuller’s examples (brief, page 3). This argument is not well taken because
Fuller’s disclosure is not limited to the examples. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,
794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176
USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA 1972).
Appellant argues that “Fuller’s requirement that the gettering metal form an alloy
with the semiconductor at less than the melting point of the semiconductor suggests
forming a eutectic alloy in contrast to melting the metal for gettering purposes” (brief, page
4). This argument is not persuasive because appellant’s claim 1 does not exclude a
method in which the gettering material forms a eutectic alloy. What the claim
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007