Appeal No. 1999-0527
Application No. 08/801,837
that one skilled in this art would have understood from the
overall disclosure what structurally constitutes the guideways
5.1 (partially and inadequately shown in Figures 1 and 5) and
receptacles 1.2 (partially and inadequately depicted solely in
Figure 5) and their interface. Further, we readily discern that
the circumferential extent of each segment 1.1 and interface
between the movable segments 1.1 are not adequately disclosed as
to the claimed sleeve of segments fastened on a sensor ring
nondisplaceably in an axial direction and displaceably outwardly
in a radial direction.
The main and reply briefs provide a narrative explanation
and argument as to why the disclosure is adequate (enabling).
However, the content of these briefs simply does not persuade us
that the disclosure is in fact adequate. No evidence has been
submitted to prove that one skilled in this art would have been
enabled by the disclosure to practice the invention. A counsel’s
argument in a brief simply cannot take the place of evidence.
See In re DeBlauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed.
Cir 1984). The necessity of having to add to Figure 1
(appellants’ marked-up Figure 1 attached to the main brief) to
obtain a basis for the argument made that the extent of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007