Ex Parte Weisbart et al - Page 8


                  Appeal No.  2006-2745                                                             Page 8                   
                  Application No.  09/966,119                                                                                
                           Third, the invention must in fact satisfy the long-felt need. In re                               
                         Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491, 168 USPQ 466 (CCPA 1971).                                                   
                  On this record, appellants’ fail to provide objective evidence demonstrating that                          
                  the alleged “long-felt need” was persistent and recognized by those of ordinary                            
                  skill in the art.  Appellants’ failed to demonstrate that the alleged “long-felt need”                     
                  was not satisfied by another before the date of appellants’ invention[ ]3, or that                         
                  appellants’ invention, in fact satisfied the alleged long-felt need in the art.                            
                  Instead of providing objective evidence supporting their assertions, appellants                            
                  satisfy themselves with the arguments of counsel.  We note, however, that                                  
                  arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record.  In re                               
                  Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965).  Accordingly, we                                
                  are not persuaded by appellants’ arguments concerning “long-felt need.”                                    
                         On reflection, we find no error in the examiner’s prima facie case of                               
                  obviousness.  Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C.                             
                  § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hardie and Kent.  As                                   
                  discussed supra claim 8 falls together with claim 28.                                                      







                                                                                                                             
                  3 In this regard, we note the examiner’s reference to Weissbart.  Answer, page 8.  While the               
                  examiner asserts (id.) that this document is a United States Patent, the examiner fails to identify        
                  the Patent No. or make this reference of record in the case.  Accordingly, we have not considered          
                  this document.  In addition, we recognize the examiner’s reference to a database search using              
                  the keywords “rheumatoid arthritis or ra and treat?. . .. with the near30 describer . . . .”  While we     
                  are confident that a number of documents may contain these “terms” within 30 words of each                 
                  other, it is unclear on this record if any of these documents are relevant to the invention before us      
                  on review.  In the event of further prosecution, we encourage the examiner to identify relevant            
                  evidence that supports his position and make this evidence of record.                                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007