Appeal No. 2005-1538
Application No. 09/950,654
of the fact that Jewell recognizes that materials treated
with the disclosed TEMPO produce a stable fiber (wherein a
“stable” fiber refers to very low cross-linking and color
reversion)).
With regard to appellant’s argument as set forth at
the bottom of page 6 and page 7 of the brief (e.g., that
the nitroxide in Jewell is not chemically attached to the
cellulose by an amino or any other group, etc.), we are not
persuaded by such argument. These assertions are not
verified or sworn to by appellants, or reviewed by an
expert or one of ordinary skill in the art, but merely
submitted by appellants’ attorney, and therefore must be
given little weight as mere attorney argument. See In re
Scarborough, 500 F.2d 560, 566, 182 USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA
1974).
Finally, we agree with the examiner’s position that it would
have been obvious to have replaced the TEMPO of Seltzer with the
TEMPO of Jewell, for performing the same function of stabilizing
the pulp from light and preventing color reversion. See
In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA
1982)(equivalence is its own motivation and no express suggestion
is necessary to render such substitution obvious).
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 10-19, and 24-26
as being obvious over Seltzer in view of Jewell.
II. Conclusion
The obviousness rejection is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(iv)(effective Sept. 13, 2004).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007