Appeal No. 2001-1912
Application No. 08/803,392
high frequency detection or that utilize low pass filtering of baseband signals “as in the
device disclosed in the Okanobu reference.”
However, appellants’ position is not responsive to the rejection before us. In
particular, appellants do not rebut the examiner’s reasoning with respect to why the
artisan would have considered obvious the use of a frequency hopping scheme. While
we cannot say with certainty that appellants’ allegations with respect to why the artisan
may have considered “frequency hopping” unnecessary for a device as disclosed by
Okanobu are incorrect, appellants do not point out anything in the instant disclosure or
references of record lending support to the arguments. Moreover, appellants’ position
is based on mere attorney arguments, rather than supported by rebuttal evidence.
Arguments of counsel are not evidence. See, e.g., Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775,
782, 193 USPQ 17, 22 (CCPA 1977); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ
641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
Although appellants disclose a radio transceiver on a single IC chip, appellants’
invention does not require that all elements be on the same chip. (See, e.g.,
specification at 20, ll. 13-21.) The only reference to a “single IC chip” in claim 25
appears in the preamble; we find nothing in the body of the claim requiring that the
elements be on the same chip. We therefore interpret “on a single IC chip” as recited in
claim 25 to represent mere intended use, as opposed to a limitation of the subject
matter. The preamble of a claim does not limit the scope of the claim when it merely
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007