Appeal No. 2004-1854
Application No. 08/971,851
These arguments are also not persuasive. Appellants have
not provided objective evidence or convincing reasoning to support
their argument that “it is only when there is ‘excessive
compressive force’ applied that a part of the projections b on the
surface of the seal-mat move into the grooves/concaves 1a” (Brief,
page 12). See In re Scarborough, 500 F.2d 560, 566, 182 USPQ 298,
302 (CCPA 1974)(generally held that attorney argument is
insufficient to take the place of evidence or expert testimony).
Contrary to appellants’ argument, JP ‘916 specifically teaches
that “[e]ven though a compression reduction effort is obtained as
described above using grooves 1a, ridges b on both surfaces of seal
mat 1 are still adhered onto honeycomb catalyst 2 or inside casing
3; because of this, seal mat 1 can maintain excellent sealing
performance.” Page 3, third full paragraph, last sentence.
Appellants argue that the cross-sectional shapes of the
score lines, as set forth in dependent claims 18 and 47, are not
suggested by JP ‘916 (Brief, page 13). As noted by the examiner
(Answer, page 11), JP ‘916 would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in this art that the shape of the score lines was not
critical as long as the same overall effect was achieved.
Appellants argue that JP ‘313 supplies none of the
deficiencies of JP ‘916 as previously discussed (Brief, page 16).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007