Appeal No. 2006-0916
Application No. 10/345,711
Thus, there is no basis for asserting any unexpected results
over Example 56 of Markusch.
The appellants argue that “[t]he particular sequence of
steps [recited in the appealed claims] is critical and provides
the unexpected properties of the composite product of the
invention.” (Appeal brief at 7.) As succinctly stated by the
examiner (answer at 4), mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory
statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence (e.g.,
comparative experimental data commensurate with the degree of
patent protection sought), are entitled to little probative
value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ
191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199
USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508-09,
173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972).
The appellants contend that Markusch’s objective is to
provide a polyisocyanate that is readily dispersible in water
and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not
consider the here claimed sequence. (Appeal brief at 8.) Thus,
it appears that the appellants are contending that Markusch
teaches away from the claimed invention by disclosing a water
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007