Ex parte OLIVER - Page 7




          Appeal No. 2001-0271                                       Page 7           
          Application No. 08/855,474                                                  


          layer 108 is not attached thereto (col. 6, lines 29-36).  The               
          pouch 138 is expandable, due to the fact that all of the                    
          materials (cover 108 and base layer 112) of which it is formed              
          are flexible (col. 6, lines 41-43).                                         
               Appellant's argument (brief, p. 6) that House does not                 
          disclose a pocket or an aperture is not well taken.  The                    
          opening at the peripheral edge 144D at which the cover and                  
          base layer are not attached, which provides access into the                 
          pouch 138, is an aperture as recited in claim 12.  Claim 12                 
          does not recite a pocket, but, in any event, the pouch 138 is               
          a pocket as that term is conventionally understood.3                        
               Appellant also argues that various types of computer                   
          disks, such as, for instance, ZIP disks, would badly deform                 
          the mouse pad of the House reference (brief, p. 6).                         
          Initially, we note that appellant has not provided any                      
          evidence to support this assertion.   Moreover, even if4                                        
          appellant is correct that insertion of a disk ZIP drive would               


               A "pocket" is a receptacle or container (Webster's New Collegiate3                                                                     
          Dictionary (Merriam-Webster 1977)).                                         
               An attorney's arguments in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.4                                                                     
          In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).          







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007