Appeal No. 2000-1633 Page 8
Application No. 08/994,159
USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Hence, appellant's burden
before the USPTO is to prove that Durand's inserts 20c are not
pivotally connected to the sprocket 10c. The appellant has
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). Appellant's mere argument on pages 6-9 of
the brief that Durand does not disclose inserts pivotally
connected to the sprocket 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).
The argument presented by the appellant does not convince
us that the subject matter of claim 12 is novel for the
reasons set forth above and the reasons set forth by the
examiner in the response to argument section of the answer,
which we hereby incorporate. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007