Appeal No. 1997-1572
Application 07/792,534
Examiner [answer, pages 5 to 6]. Therefore, we also sustain
rejection of claims 20 and 21.
Finally, we briefly address the argument of unexpected
results. We agree with the Examiner’s statement [answer,
pages 11 and 12] that the record is devoid of evidence
supporting the presence of any unexpected results. Such
evidence should be from impartial parties and substantial in
nature. Attorney'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). Likewise, mere attorney argument does
not take the place of
evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d
775, 782, 193 USPQ 17, 22 (CCPA 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S.
854, 195 USPQ 465 (1977).
In summary, we have sustained the rejections of claims 1,
3, 7 to 12 and 16 to 21. Accordingly, we affirm.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007