Appeal No. 2000-1213
Application No. 08/566,006
must be considered. See, e.g., In re Luck and Gainer,
177 U.S.P.Q. 523, 525 (CCPA 1973) and In re Hallman, 210
U.S.P.Q. 609, 611 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, the
Examiner’s disregard of the single process limitation in
claim 8 is believed to be improper, particularly when
this limitation gives clear meaning to a product
limitation that is nowhere found in or suggested by the
art of record.
Appellant, however, has not demonstrated that the welds produced by
ultrasonic fusing is patentably different from the welds produced
by the other conventional thermal bonding techniques described in
the applied prior art. See Brief, pages 3 and 4. In this regard,
we want to emphasize that mere arguments in the Brief or conclusory
statements in the specification cannot take the place of objective
evidence. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356,
358 (CCPA 1972).
Even were we to accept that the welds produced by ultrasonic
fusing are different from the welds described in the applied prior
art, our conclusion would not be changed. As correctly found by
the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 4), the applied prior art
references, namely Szczech, Nelson, Martin and Walter, teach that
ultrasonic welding can be used to bond the sheets (films) of a
cellular flexible retroreflective sheeting. Thus, we concur with
the examiner that the applied prior art would have at least
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007