Appeal No. 2001-1142
Application No. 09/065,143
The appellants argue that the claimed device imparts
unexpected results relative to the prior art device. See the
Reply Brief, page 3, together with the Brief, page 5. However,
we observe that the appellants have not proffered any factual
evidence to support their arguments. See the Brief and the Reply
Brief in their entirety. Mere arguments in the Brief and the
Reply Brief or conclusory statements in the specification cannot
take the place of objective evidence. See In re De Blauwe, 736
F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Lindner,
457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, we
find that the appellants’ alleged improvements are expected from
the teachings at column 3, lines 1-4 and 29-35 of Fiorentini as
indicated supra. See, e.g., In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186
USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975)(“[e]xpected beneficial results are
evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention just as unexpected
beneficial results are evidence of unobviousness”).
Under these circumstances, we agree with the examiner that
the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Fiorentini.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims
8 and 11 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007