Appeal No. 2002-1791
Application No. 08/588,945
art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the
references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the
inventor”); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 696, 16 USPQ2d 1897,
1901, 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(en banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S.
904 (1991)(all the utilities or benefits of the claimed invention
need not be explicitly disclosed by the prior art references to
render the claimed subject matter obvious within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. 103).
To the extent that the appellants are relying on the above
alleged improvements as unexpected results, we note that they
have not referred to any factual evidence to support such an
allegation. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191,
196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(arguments in the Brief or conclusory
statements in the specification cannot take the place of
objective evidence); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ
356, 358 (CCPA 1972)(“mere lawyers’ arguments unsupported by
factual evidence are insufficient to establish unexpected
results”). Nor have the appellants averred anywhere in the
specification or a Rule 132 declaration that the alleged
improvements are unexpected. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007