Appeal No. 2000-0068
Application 08/858,116
surprising or unexpected results represented by objective
evidence in this record. It by now well-settled that attorney
argument does not take the place of probative, objective evidence
of non-obviousness. Accordingly, the prima facie case of
obviousness stands unrebutted.
OTHER ISSUES
In reviewing the entire record in this proceeding we have
noted that cited in the prosecution of both Seymour and Kuster is
U.S. Patent Number 3,846,104, issued on November 5, 1974 to
Seymour. Therein, in Figure 1, Seymour describes a process for
shaping a sheet of glass heated to its softening point by placing
a heated sheet of glass on a ring mold (column 5, lines 47
through 51; column 6, lines 4 through 6); lowering a vacuum
suction mold to the heated glass sheet to shape the same by
vacuum (column 6, lines 20 through 44); and, subsequently
transporting the shaped glass sheet via a tempering ring to a
quenching station (column 6, lines 45 through 48; lines 70
through 75). In the event appellants elect to further prosecute
the subject matter of this application in another application
both the appellants and the examiner should consider the
relevance of this reference to the claimed subject matter under
the statute.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007