Appeal No. 1997-2682
Application No. 08/382,937
attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F. 2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Further, Appellants have provided no evidence of record
to support their contention that the different light sources
used in Adams, Shanks, and Barnik, as opposed to the
luminescent layer of Welker, would lead away from any
motivation to combine the teachings. The arguments of counsel
cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re
Schulze, 346 F. 2d 600, 602,
145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465,
1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Absent any
evidence to the contrary on the record, it is our view that
the reasonableness of the proposed combination of Welker,
Adams, Shanks, and Barnik which forms the basis of the
35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection, remains unrebutted by any convincing
arguments of Appellants.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007