Appeal No. 2003-1038
Application No. 09/262,628
’002, the appellants have not identified any evidence to
establish that all seven of the enumerated polymers are
necessarily “fluoroplastics.” While the appellants offer to
submit additional evidence (appeal brief, page 9, n.4), such
evidence has not been made of record.8 Further on this point, we
observe that the copolymers recited in the specification at page
2, lines 4-11, encompass copolymers containing additional
monomers such as dienes, which would render the resulting
polymer elastomeric.9
The appellants contend that “fluoroelastomers” are
unsuitable for use as orthodontic articles. (Appeal brief, page
8.) Presumably, the appellants are attempting to argue that the
fluoropolymers described in the specification are therefore
8 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).
9 We do not subscribe to the appellants’ argument that a
“copolymer” is limited to a polymer made of only two monomers.
(Appeal brief, p. 3.) Nothing in the specification compels such
a restrictive view of the specification disclosure, and, in
fact, such a restrictive view is contrary to accepted polymer
nomenclature. Fred W. Billmeyer, Jr., Textbook of Polymer
Science 101 (John Wiley & Sons 3rd ed. 1984); Hawley’s Condensed
Chemical Dictionary 297 (Van Nostrand Reinhold 13th ed. 1997)
(copies attached).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007