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). 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007