Appeal No. 2006-0231 Παγε 4
Application No. 09/234,253
Appellants’ argument and declaration are not persuasive. Rodgers discloses
polyurethane and polyester coatings are known as paper coatings. (Col. 8, ll. 29-47).
The statement of the declarant is limited to the disclosure of the three documents cited
in the declaration. The cited documents do not include the Rodgers reference cited in
the rejection of the claims. (See declaration, page 2). Appellants have not presented a
declaration that discusses the disclosure of the Rodgers reference.
Appellants’ counsel’s unsupported argument is not persuasive. Specifically
Appellants’ counsel states that the “statement of Rodgers is moot as a paper expert in
2002 stated that polyurethane and polyester coatings are unknown as paper coatings.”
(Brief, p. 5). As stated above, the declarant did not considered the Rodgers reference
when providing the discussion appearing in the declaration. Unsupported arguments of
counsel cannot take the place of evidence. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405,
181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
Appellants argue, in view of the declaration, that those skilled in the art would not
combine Seltzer and Rogers because polyurethane or polyester coatings were unknown
as paper coatings at the time of filing the present invention and further that Seltzer is
aimed at thermoset resins such as automotive coating resins exemplified in working
Examples 12-14. (Brief, p. 5).
The Seltzer and Rogers references are not limited to the scope of Appellants’
arguments. Seltzer discloses hindered amine light stabilizers which combine low
basicity with a peroxy group in the same molecule. According to Seltzer, column 1,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007