Appeal 2007-2863
Application 10/934,507
1 lines 15-18 of the Asahi Glass specification. The problem with the
2 specification is that the portion relied upon is a conclusory assertion, itself
3 not supported by convincing evidence. We decline to credit a broad
4 assertion unsupported by credible scientific evidence. Cf. Rohm and Haas
5 Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092, 44 USPQ2d 1459, 1462 (Fed.
6 Cir. 1997) (nothing in the Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires a fact finder
7 to credit the unsupported assertions of an expert witness). Moreover, we
8 think Asahi Glass, on these facts, is in a position no better than Spada in In
9 re Spada, 911 F.2d at 709, 15 USPQ2d at 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), where the
10 claimed Spada product was said to have a property different from the
11 property reported in the prior art reference relied upon.
12 We have considered Asahi Glass remaining arguments and find none
13 that warrant reversal of the Examiner’s rejection. Cf. Hartman v. Nicholson,
14 483 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
15
16 G. Conclusions of law
17 Asahi Glass has not sustained its burden on appeal of showing that the
18 Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal as being unpatentable over
19 Saito (WO).
20 On the record before us, Asahi Glass is not entitled to a patent
21 containing claims 1-16.
22
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013