Appeal 2006-2171
Application 10/840,715
col. 1, ll. 27-34, 46-49), would have provided motivation to one of ordinary
skill in the art for combining Price’s bilge water level monitoring method
with Herzhauser’s method of containing and removing water bypassing a
stuffing box. As the Examiner indicated, Herzhauser’s stuffing box splash
guard funnels the water into sump 46 located in the bilge of the craft such
that Price’s reasons indicated above for using his bilge water monitoring
method and device would provide motivation for the combination of Price’s
bilge water monitoring method with Herzhauser’s method of containing and
removing water bypassing a stuffing box (Answer 14).
Appellant appears to be arguing a long-felt-need in the boat art when
he states “[b]efore, [Appellant’s invention] boat mechanics would have to
visually inspect the stuffing box assembly to inspect whether the packing
box has been improperly adjusted or if the packing material needed to be
replaced” but Appellant’s invention provides an easy determination of the
source of leakage without having to inspect the bilge area (Br. 8). We note
that Appellant has not provided any declaration or affidavit to support his
argument. However, objective evidence must be factually supported by
appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value. In re Lindner,
457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972). Attorney arguments
cannot take the place of such evidence on the record. In re Schulze, 346
F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965).
From the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of argued
claim 1 and non-argued claims 2-5, and 8 under § 103(a) over Herzhauser in
view of Price.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013