Appeal 2007-1230
Application 10/633,935
Although Appellant argues that Zeng’s camera could not perform
correctly with Miraldi’s photodetector mounting (Br. 10), Appellant has
provided no evidence on this record to support this assertion apart from mere
conclusory statements. It is well settled that mere lawyer’s arguments and
conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, 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). Appellant has simply not persuasively
rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case in this regard. For the reasons
noted above and given the inferences and creative steps that the skilled
artisan would employ,4 we find ample reason on this record for the skilled
artisan to couple the photodetectors to the ends of the detector elements 106
of Zeng, particularly noting the detector elements’ rectangular cross-section
in Fig. 4.
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 11. Since Appellant has not separately argued the
patentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 13-15, 18, 19, and 21-25, these claims
fall with representative claim 11. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Representative Claim 12
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
12. In short, Appellant has simply not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s
prima facie case based on the collective teachings of the references.
Significantly, Appellant does not dispute that Iwanczyk teaches using a
4 See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013