Appeal No. 2003-0715
Application No. 09/873,806
[I]f the treatment is conducted below about 100°C or
the contact time is less than 1 hour, the quality of
the final resin as measured by the efficiency of
trihalomethane removal by mixed-bed systems containing
the weak acid cation exchange resin is unsatisfactory,
e.g., the resin contains undesirable residual
extractable materials that contribute odor.
This argument is unpersuasive. The appellants have failed
to identify the factual basis (i.e., objective evidence) to
support this allegation. In this regard, it is well settled
that mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements, which
are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d
1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705,
222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638,
642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506,
508-09, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972).
Referring to the data summarized in Table 1 and the
description at page 9, line 26 to page 11, line 7 of the
specification, the appellants allege an “unexpected improvement
(3-8% absolute difference in ‘chloroform removal efficiency’)
for resin treated by the method of the present invention...”
(Appeal brief, page 5.) We do not find the proffered evidence
to be sufficient for the following reasons.
First, the appellants have not compared the claimed
invention against the closest prior art, which is either Ballard
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007