Appeal No. 2003-0060
Application 09/236,718
no evidentiary support for this argument, and arguments of
counsel cannot take the place of evidence. See In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re
Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979); In re
Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189, 197 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA 1978);
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA
1974). Also, the argument is not well taken for the reasons
given in the previous paragraph.
The appellants argue that Pike discloses that his fibers are
instantaneously splittable upon contact with water, and that this
teaching would not have motivated one of ordinary skill in the
art to solve the problem of inefficient carding or poor nonwoven
fabric appearance caused by buildup of static electricity (brief,
page 4).3 The appellants also argue that there is no teaching in
Pike to select polyamide-polyester to improve water
absorptiveness (reply brief, pages 2-3). These arguments are not
persuasive because to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, references need not be combined for the purpose of
solving the problem solved by the appellants. See In re Kemps,
3 Pike teaches that his splitting process requires short
treatment with a hot aqueous medium such as hot water or steam
(col. 4, lines 8-9; col. 8, lines 33-46).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007