Appeal No. 1998-0437
Application No. 08/603,523
burden upon appellant to come forward with evidence
establishing a difference between the claimed product and the
prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ
289, 292-93 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We hold that appellant has not
presented sufficient evidence to establish a difference
between the claimed product and the prior art product. Thus,
we disagree with appellant’s argument (Brief, page 5) that
Satoh does not teach that the first number N is chosen in
g
accordance with (2B/3)(2B + 8k - 2B(B + 8k ) -(k /3) )2 2 2 2 0.5 2 2 -0.5 # N # g1
2 2 2 2 0.5
(4B/3)(2B + 8k -2B(B + 8k )
2 2 -0.5 2
-((2k /3) ) , wherein k is an electromechanical coupling
coefficient of said substrate defined in claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9,
16, and 18-20.
Appellant further argues (Brief, page 6) that Satoh is a
non-enabling reference. Mere attorney argument (Brief, pages
6-13) will not suffice to prove non-enablement of Satoh.
Evidence of such non-enablement must be provided by appellant
to prove such a case. 4
4Appellant’s citation of In re Brown, 329 F.2d 1006, 141
USPQ 245 (CCPA 1964) and In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ
365 (CCPA 1962) cannot take the place of an evidentiary
showing.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007