Appeal No. 95-5000 Page 10
Application No. 08/021,883
the use of the downflow channel and return channel, (c) any
limit on the length of the resulting flow path from the use of
the downflow channel and return channel, or (d) any limit on
the cross-sectional areas of the downflow channel and return
channel.
We have reviewed the appellant's arguments (brief, pp.
18-22) but find no evidence in the record to establish either
(1) unexpected results, or (2) that an art recognized problem
existed in the art for a long period of time without solution.
In that regard, we note that the attorney's arguments in a
brief cannot take the place of evidence. See In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the examiner
has met his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to claims 1 and 27.
SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
Having arrived at the conclusion that the teachings of
the applied prior art are sufficient to establish a prima
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007