Appeal No. 96-4007
Application No. 08/294,769
The appellant's argument (brief, p. 4) that if one were to
employ a one-piece gripper as taught by Beidler, it would be
necessary to provide a clutch mechanism which temporarily ceases
movement of the conveyor is unpersuasive since the appellant's
have not submitted any evidence to support this statement.
Attorney's arguments in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646
(CCPA 1974). Furthermore, we disagree with the appellant's
conclusion. In our opinion, Keller clearly discloses that a
clutch mechanism is not necessary to time the arrival of articles
to the opening of a gripper traversing an arc if a coordinated
transfer means is utilized to supply an article to each gripper
as it opens. As noted above, such continuous operation provides
a more efficient system by speeding up the loading process.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the standing
§ 103 rejection of claims 1 and 9.
The appellant has grouped claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 16 as
standing or falling together. Additionally, the appellant has
grouped claims 9 and 17 as standing or falling together. 5
5See pages 2-3 of the appellant's brief.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007