Appeal No. 2003-2168
Application No. 09/996,010
unsubstantiated by objective evidence, is also made against JP
4-15142 and 4-2538. (Id. at pages 5-6.) It has long been held,
however, 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).
Because the appellants have not successfully rebutted the
prima facie case of anticipation established by each of the
applied prior art references, we affirm the examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of: (i) appealed claims 1
through 7, 9, and 11 through 15 as anticipated by JP 4-15142;
(ii) appealed claims 1 through 9 and 11 through 16 as
anticipated by JP 4-2538; and (iii) appealed claims 1 through 3,
5, 9 through 11, and 13 as anticipated by JP 4-46840.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007