Appeal No. 95-0140
Application 08/002,528
The examiner has also relied upon Rothele for a teaching of
a zig-zag conveyor. There is, however, no limitation in
independent claim 17 which requires that the counter-current
gravity classifier be of the zig-zag type.
The appellants have not argued the patentability of
dependent claims 18, 20 and 22 and, accordingly, these claims
fall with independent claim 17. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
At oral hearing the appellants’ counsel made reference to a
declaration by Uhlemann as providing evidence of non-obviousness,
which declaration was apparently attached to the preliminary
amendment filed on Feb. 26, 1990 (Paper No. 4). We must point
out, however, that the brief makes no mention whatsoever of this
declaration (37 CFR § 1.192(a) expressly requires that all
arguments and authorities relied on be set forth in the brief).
In any event, even if this declaration had been relied on in the
brief, paragraph 5 of the declaration merely makes the conclusory
statement5 that it is not possible in the British reference (Ube)
5 Affidavits and declarations fail in their purpose when
they recite conclusions with few facts to buttress the
conclusions. See In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 1406, 179
USPQ 286, 294 (CCPA 1973), In re Thompson, 545 F.2d 1290, 1295,
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007