Appeal No. 1999-0404 Page 26
Application No. 08/580,256
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
Third, the appellants have argued the deficiencies of
each reference on an individual basis. However, it is well
settled that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking
the references individually when the rejection is predicated
upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck
& Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Fourth, the appellants argue that the invention achieves
remarkable improvements in terms of overall heat transfer
coefficient (i.e., unexpected results). However, it is well
settled that an attorney's argument in a brief, reply brief,
or supplemental reply brief cannot take the place of evidence.
See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646
(CCPA 1974). We note that no such evidence is of record in
this application. Moreover, it would appear that in applying
the teachings of Chiang to the known prior art system an
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007