Appeal No. 96-0384 Page 6
Application No. 08/106,252
establish patentability.” In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1350-
1351, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982).
Appellants also dispute the teachings of Basol regarding
the usefulness of tellurium as a p-type dopant in a mercury
cadmium telluride substrate urging that second phase tellurium
is electrically inactive and that tellurium in the cadmium
telluride capping layer would be essentially immobile compared
to diffusion of metal interstitials (brief, page 3). However,
appellants have not proffered any evidence to substantiate
their dispute with the prior art teachings of Basol. In this
regard, it is well settled that counsel's arguments in the
brief are no substitute for objective evidence. See In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
Based on the present record, it is our view that the
examiner has properly utilized the teachings and suggestions
of the applied prior art both as to what the references teach
and also as to what they fairly would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175,
1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979). Accordingly, we conclude
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007