Appeal No. 2004-1194 Page 9
Application No. 09/580,880
to satisfy that burden. Compare In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,
433-34 (CCPA 1977); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA
1971). The appellants' mere argument in the brief and the reply brief that Bobkowicz's
rotatable grooved consolidating roll 25 does not meet the functional recitations of claims
16 and 23 is not evidence. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641,
646 (CCPA 1974)(attorney's arguments in a brief cannot take the place of evidence).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 16
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
With respect to claims 17, 22, 24 and 29, Bobkowicz's rotatable grooved
consolidating roll 25 does not have holes which extend through a point where the at
least two surfaces of the groove meet, thereby forming a scalloped surface.
20. With respect to claims 20, 22, 27 and 29, Bobkowicz's rotatable grooved
consolidating roll 25 does not have holes which extend perpendicular to the point where
the at least two surfaces of the groove meet.
For the reasons set forth above, claims 17, 20, 22, 24, 27 and 29 are not
anticipated by Bobkowicz. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 17,
20, 22, 24, 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007