Appeal No. 1999-2242
Application No. 08/137,056
exist between the process of making a windshield wiper or to
the mold used in such a process, it does not necessarily
follow that differences exist between a product made using a
mold having a permanent PTFE coating on the inside surface
thereof and a product made by the prior art process taught by
Yasukawa.
The appellant next argues (main brief, p. 5) that he has
found that enhanced penetration of a release agent into the
surface of the wiper as it forms during molding can be
achieved by having in place, prior to molding, an additional
release agent between the surface of the permanent PTFE
coating on the mold and the exterior surface of the uncured
rubber mixture. However, the appellant has not identified
this “enhanced penetration” as constituting a distinction over
the applied prior art. Further, the appellant has not
submitted any objective evidence to support the allegation
regarding “enhanced penetration.” In this regard, it is well
settled that the arguments of counsel in a brief cannot take
the place of evidence in the record. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d
1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007