Appeal 2007-1692
Application 10/415,009
lawyers' arguments unsupported by factual evidence are insufficient to
establish unexpected results”).
Moreover, Appellants must adequately explain what facts or data
support their showing of unexpected results. Appellants’ vague and general
statements as to what the examples show along with the assertion that the
results are superior amount essentially to mere pleading. A mere pleading
unsupported by proof or showing of facts is inadequate. In re Borkowski,
505 F.2d 713, 718, 184 USPQ 29, 33 (CCPA 1974).
We will not attempt to independently determine the comparisons on
which Appellants rely upon or the significance thereof. Cf. In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail
than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the
prior art.”).
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude that Appellants have not overcome the rejection either
(1) by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or (2) by
rebutting the prima facie case with sufficient evidence of unexpected results.
IV. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 19, 20, 22-26, and 28-
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013