Appeal No. 2002-1352
Application 09/051,975
We view appellants’ contention in the brief (pages 5-6) that
friction stir welding could not even be used to manufacture the
vehicle wheels disclosed in Stach ‘415 as being mere attorney
argument unsupported by appropriate evidence. It is well settled
that an attorney's argument in the brief cannot take the place of
evidence and that arguments of counsel, unsupported by competent
factual evidence of record, are entitled to little weight. See
In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979) and
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA
1974).
Moreover, we observe that appellants’ contention that the
weld joints in Stach ‘415 (Fig. 6) are linear and, therefore,
would not provide sufficient support to withstand the pressure
applied by the rotating probe during a friction stir welding
process, is without merit since the weld joint (S1) seen in
Figure 6 of Stach ’415 includes an angular receiving profile (20)
which is clearly not linear and which appears fully capable of
receiving the pressure of a rotating probe like that used in the
friction stir welding process of Midling during fomation of the
weld seam (S1). Further, we note that in an obviousness
assessment like that before us on appeal, skill is presumed on
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007