Appeal No. 2003-0217
Application No. 09/284,076
be considered as part of Javeri’s chemical production process
plant, and thus is subject to having been omitted in the
interests of clarity.” (Id.)
The appellant’s position is not well taken. As we
discussed above, Javeri makes no mention of the use of a heater
or a fan in line 5. In fact, Javeri appears to teach exactly
the opposite when he states that “the primary reformer furnace
utili[zes] gas turbine exhaust as the preheated combustion air”
(page 1, lines 69-70) and “the provision for a large combustion
preheater and associated forced draft fans is eliminated” (page
2, lines 49-50). Moreover, the appellant’s position is grounded
on conclusory statements that are not supported by objective
evidence.1
Under these circumstances, we hold that the examiner has
discharged the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation.
35 353535 U.S.C. § 103: Claims 10-14
1 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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007