Appeal No. 2002-1001
Application No. 09/202,906
The appellants argue that the molecular weight of the
claimed polymer was analyzed using gel permeation chromatography
(GPC) by comparing the orthoester-based polymers with
polypropylene glycol of known Mw and that, therefore, the recited
molecular weight values are Mw values. (Appeal brief, page 4.)
Again, however, the appellants have failed to identify any
evidence in the specification or elsewhere to support this
argument. On this point, it is well settled that mere lawyer’s
arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by
factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137,
140 (CCPA 1978); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508-09, 173 USPQ
356, 358 (CCPA 1972).
The appellants urge: “[N]umber average molecular weight is
not mentioned anywhere in appellants’ specification.” (Appeal
brief, page 5.) We note, however, that the appellants have not
identified any portion of the specification that mentions weight
average molecular weight. Accordingly, it is our judgment that
one skilled in the relevant art would not understand what type
of molecular weight values are intended and, therefore, would be
unable to ascertain the scope of appealed claim 3.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007