Appeal No. 1997-4385
Application No. 08/288,864
in claim 19. The appellant has not come forward with any
evidence to satisfy that burden. Compare In re Best, 562 F.2d
1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977); In re Ludtke,
441 F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971). The
appellant’s mere argument in the brief to the effect that
Dewitz’s vortex stabilizer does not perform the function
defined
by the solids deflector in claim 19 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).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
The appellant has grouped claims 19 through 24 as
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007