Appeal No. 98-1455 Page 8
Application No. 08/625,936
that such is not claimed. The appellants also argue that the
claimed "integrally formed extruded flange extending outwardly
from the body" is not taught by De Rose. As pointed above, it
is our opinion that the claimed "integrally formed extruded
flange extending outwardly from the body" is readable on the
flange of De Rose. As shown by the hatching of Figure 17, the
hub 103 is an integrally formed member having a flange
extending outwardly from the rightmost side plate 102.
While De Rose does not specifically teach that the hub
103 is made by extrusion, the appellants have offered no
evidence that (1) the term "extruded" as used in claim 16 is3
a structural limitation, and (2) that the hub 103 of De Rose
could not be formed by extrusion (see page 8 of the brief).
It is our determination that this method of making limitation
does not affect the product itself (i.e., the claimed linkage
member) and therefore cannot impart patentability to the
product. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964,
3Attorney'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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007