Appeal No. 1997-3709
Application 08/582,034
paragraphs 7 and 10. In paragraph 7, declarant voices his
opinions regarding the “criticality” of the claimed shape of
the passageways. However, in that the Figure 4 embodiment of
Soltis corresponds to the shape of the passageways as broadly
claimed, it is reasonable of presume that the passageways of
the Figure 4 embodiment of Soltis would function in the same
way as the claimed passageways. In paragraph 10, declarant
states that he “believes” that the claimed brake structure has
several advantages (minimized “coning”, more uniform
temperature distribution, less tendency to fade, etc.) over
prior art brake rotors. However, in that appellants have
provided no objective evidence (i.e., comparative tests of the
claimed brake disk versus the closest prior art) in support of
their “belief,” appellants’ opinions in this regard are
entitled to relatively little weight.
When all the evidence and arguments are considered anew
it is our conclusion that, on balance, the evidence and
arguments presented by appellants fails to outweigh the
evidence of obviousness established by the prior art. See
Newell Companies Inc. v. Kenney Manufacturing Co., 864 F.2d
-22-
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007