Appeal No. 96-2780
Application 08/162,362
find that Marrujo ‘441 discloses, as is depicted in Figure 1, a
longitudinal member or end bay 22 for use in a support frame for
a vehicle passenger seating unit. We are of the opinion that
the finding of the examiner that end bay 22 is a one piece
longitudinal member is reasonable in view of the depiction of end
bay 22 in Figure 1. In addition, we note that Marrujo ‘441
expressly discloses that the longitudinal member serves as an
armrest (Col. 3, lines 52-53).
Appellants argue that Marrujo ‘441 does not disclose a one
piece longitudinal member. According to appellants, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood end bay 22 of
Marrujo ‘441 to be constructed as disclosed in Marrujo et al.,
U.S. Patent No. 4,186,964 (Marrujo ‘964) which was not cited
in support of the rejection. Murrujo ‘964 discloses a
longitudinal member which connects to an adjacent longitudinal
member via projections 112 and 114 to form end bay 12. This
argument is not persuasive because appellants have not submitted
objective factual evidence which proves that end bay 22 of
Marrujo ‘441 is the same as end bay 12 of Marrujo ‘964.
Arguments of counsel are no substitute for evidence. See In re
Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 566, 182 USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA 1974); In
re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1395, 183 USPQ 288, 299 (CCPA 1974).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007