Appeal No. 95-4830
Application 07/899,361
difference. See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324, 177 USPQ
139, 143 (CCPA 1973); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173
USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972). Appellants merely provide attorney
argument that their Table 2 shows unexpected results, and
arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence. See
In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315, 203 USPQ 245, 256
(CCPA 1979); In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189, 197 USPQ
227, 230 (CCPA 1978); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181
USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974). In their specification (page 39,
lines 5-6), appellants state that of the compounds whose test
results are shown in their Table 2, i.e., the compounds in
Examples 6 and 7, which are compounds of appellants’
invention, and the compounds of Examples 8 and 9, which are
within the scope of Suzuki, “the compound in Example 6 is the
most preferable.” This statement does not indicate that the3
3Appellants’ specification includes numerous amendments
which were entered from an amendment filed on June 9, 1993
(paper no. 6). These amendments were canceled by an amendment
filed on January 24, 1994 (paper no. 10). The examiner wrote
“please enter” and her initials in the margin on the first
page of the latter amendment, but this amendment has not been
entered clerically. In this opinion, we refer to appellants’
-8-8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007