Appeal No. 2003-0628
Application No. 09/860,493 Page 6
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577-1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
We also note that the applied patents are not limited to the
preferred or exemplified embodiments disclosed therein as
appellants would appear to argue. Rather, the applied patents
may be relied upon for all they would have reasonably conveyed to
one having ordinary skill in the art. See In re Beattie, 974
F.2d 1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Young, 927 F.2d
588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Merck & Co., Inc. v.
Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed.
Cir. 1989).
Appellants (brief, page 10) urge that their golf cart design
is being copied in the industry as an apparent inference of a
secondary indicia of unobviousness. Of course, appellants are in
the best position to provide such evidence; yet, no such evidence
has been furnished. Unsupported arguments of counsel simply
cannot take the place thereof. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
Having reconsidered the evidence of record for and against a
conclusion of obviousness in light of the respective arguments
advanced by the appellants and the examiner, it is our
determination that, on balance, the evidence weighs most heavily
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007