Appeal No. 2000-1474 Page 14
Application No. 08/962,902
1977); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ 563, 566-67
(CCPA 1971).3
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
Claims 3 and 31
The appellant has grouped claims 1, 3 and 31 as standing
or falling together (brief, p.7). Thereby, in accordance with
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 3 and 31 fall with claim 1.
Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 3 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also affirmed.
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 13-21
The appellant states (brief, p. 7) that the patentability
of dependent claims 13, 19, 20 and 21 depends on the
3The appellant's mere argument in the brief and the reply
brief that Mueller's scooter does not disclose the claimed
functions is not evidence. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974)(attorney's arguments in a
brief cannot take the place of evidence).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007