Appeal No. 1996-2758
Application No. 08/103,792
7, 8 and 9 and Reply Brief, page 6. However, appellants have
not supplied any facts to support their arguments. See In re
De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir.
1984)(“Mere argument or conclusory statement in the
specification does not suffice”); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638,
642, 199 USPQ
137, 140 (CCPA 1978)(“Mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory
statements in the specification, unsupported by objective
evidence, are insufficient. . .”). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by these arguments.
Thus, having considered all of the evidence and arguments
advanced by the examiner and appellants in this record, we
determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor
of obviousness of the subject matter defined by claims 1
through 5, 8, 14, 16, 20 through 24, 27 and 33 within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 5, 8, 14, 16,
20 through 24, 27 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the Horiba
reference.
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007