Appeal 2007-0283
Application 09/849,594
We are of the opinion that the facts found by the Examiner in Bridges
and in Kielpikowski support the prima facie case of obviousness stated in
the Answer. Accordingly, we again consider the record as a whole in light
of Appellants’ arguments in the Brief and Reply Brief. See, e.g., In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants have not supported their
contentions that the bond pattern illustrated in Bridges Fig. 1 results in a
leaking seam. Unsupported contentions of counsel are entitled to little, if
any, weight. See, e.g., In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191,
196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315, 203 USPQ 245, 256
(CCPA 1979); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358
(CCPA 1972). Indeed, as the Examiner finds, Bridges discloses overlapping
inner and outer layers 46,48 can be olefinic materials which are disclosed by
Kielpikowski to be liquid impermeable. As the Examiner further finds, the
spacing between the bond points in Bridges Fig. 1E falls within the claimed
range in claim 1. Further, the description in Bridges of the displacement of
material upon the formation of a bond point for tear line 29 by ultrasonic
bonding meets the displacement requirement in the last clause of claim 27,
which displaced material at the spacing disclosed in Bridges reasonably
appears to form a leak-proof seal as it is described in the Specification.
Thus, evidence in the record reasonably appears to establish that the bond
pattern of Bridges Fig. 1E forms a leak proof seal even though the reference
is silent in this respect. See, e.g., In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255-56, 195
USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977); In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950-51, 186
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013