Appeal No. 2001-0528 Page 5
Application No. 08/892,348
are anticipated by Pennecot. The appellant's argument (brief,
p. 5) that Pennecot uses a ladder frame construction and
permanently installs the square collars 36 in the assembled
building, while true, is not persuasive since claims 21 to 24
do not distinguish over those teachings. Additionally, while
the appellant further argues (brief, p. 5) that Pennecot's
square collars 36 are not "alignment tools," we point out that
no evidence on this point has been submitted by the
appellant. In any event, it is our view that Pennecot's2
square collars 36, as shown in Figures 16 to 19, clearly
function to align various modules and therefore are "alignment
tools."
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 21 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
Rejection (2)
2It is well settled that attorney's argument in a brief
cannot take the place of evidence. 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