Appeal No. 2003-1973
Application No. 09/192,952
present application, with the transconductance of a conventional
surface channel inversion MOSFET overlaid” (second paragraph).
First, the figure in appellants’ brief is of minimum probative
value inasmuch as it is not one of the figures of the present
specification, nor is it in declaration or affidavit form.
Consequently, it is entitled to no more weight than an argument
of counsel which, of course, cannot take the place of objective
evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646
(CCPA 1974). Furthermore, appellants have conceded the validity
of the examiner’s criticism that the figure fails to provide a
showing of a Fermi-FET with an offset drain vis-a-vis a
conventional FET with an offset drain. According to the
examiner, the figure shows only a conventional FET without an
offset drain. In response, appellants thanked the examiner in
the Reply Brief “for providing this additional insight” and
provided an additional figure with two additional curves (see
page 2 of Reply Brief). Again, the additional figure is entitled
to no more weight than an argument by appellants’ counsel since
it is not in declaration or affidavit form. In addition,
appellants have furnished no evidence that the results depicted
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007