Appeal No. 2000-0606
Application No. 08/755,435
have not come forward with any evidence to satisfy that
burden. Compare In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ
430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664, 169
USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971). Appellants' mere argument on
pages 7-10 of the brief is not evidence. See In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974)(attorney's
arguments in a brief cannot take the place of evidence).
In light of the above, we shall sustain the examiner's
rejection of representative claim 1, as well as claims 2, 10,
11 and 19 which fall therewith, as being anticipated by
Downham.
The obviousness rejections
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the
slot portion of the dispensing throat has a point of minimum
width which is less than about 1.0 inches. Downham is silent
with respect to the exact dimensions of the dispensing system
or the dispensing cut out 21.
The following quotation from In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), is
applicable here:
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007