Appeal No. 98-0599
Application 08/434,029
cartridge. But appellant does not point out where in any
claim is a limitation that the hub portion of a disk cartridge
is formed from the material forming the single-piece
substrate. Secondly, to the extent that Kato’s control ring
19 acts as the hub portion of a disk cartridge, Kato discloses
use of material forming the control ring 19 to form the hub
portion of a disk cartridge.
Finally, in footnote 3 of its brief, the appellant argues
that Kato’s disclosures about the mechanical properties of
control ring 19 “teach away from substituting a transparent
optical disk substrate material to form the control ring
portion 19.” The argument is not supported by any further
discussion, explanation, or specific reference to Kato’s
disclosure. We have not been directed to any portion of Kato
or given a meaningful explanation that would indicate that
polycarbonate resin, a known optical disk substrate material
and a thermoplastic, cannot be used to form Kato’s control
ring 19. Counsel’s argument cannot take the place of evidence
lacking in the record. Knorr v. Pearson, 671 F.2d 1368, 1373,
213 USPQ 196, 200 (CCPA 1982); Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d
775, 782, 193 USPQ 17, 22 (CCPA), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 854,
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007