Appeal No. 2006-2108
Application No. 10/392,418
the main body (fig. 1).
The appellants argue that Oetiker does not disclose a main
body having a transversely extending projection (reply brief,
page 4). Oetiker’s nipple portion (30) projects transversely
from the axial abutment surface (15’) of the collar (15) which is
part of the main body.
The appellants argue that Oetiker’s tube, which has an outer
diameter less than 5 mm (col. 6, lines 62-66), is too small to be
a vehicle component (brief, page 9). This argument is not well
taken because it is unsupported by evidence, and arguments of
counsel cannot take the place of evidence. See In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
appellants have not established that automobiles, for example, do
not have tubes of that size such as vacuum and windshield washer
tubes.
The appellants argue that Oetiker’s disclosures that the
clamp satisfies a pull-off specification of three pounds over a
two week period and a blowout specification of 22 psi, and that
the silicon tube is satisfactory until it bursts at 35 psi
(col. 6, lines 41-48), do not indicate that linear movement of
the tube is prohibited but, rather, merely indicate that typical
operating pressures do not cause such movement (brief, page 10).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007