Appeal No. 2003-0229
Application No. 09/768,885
below the breezeside surface of the heater layer does little to
forward this objective and, in fact, [] robs the deicing system
of heating energy for melting ice,” no objective evidence (e.g.,
experimental evidence) has been offered to support such an
argument. 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).
Issue B
The examiner admits that neither Pfenninger nor Bloomer
teaches “programming the sewing machine to automatically stitch
the heat dissipating pattern,” as recited in appealed claims 15
and 23. (Final Office action, page 2.) To account for this
difference, the examiner relies on JP ’268.
The examiner is correct in pointing out (final Office
action, pages 2-3) that JP ’268 teaches the use of an automatic
sewing machine. But as pointed out by the appellants (appeal
brief, page 10), JP ’268 does not describe “programming” a
sewing machine. Accordingly, we cannot uphold the examiner’s
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007