Appeal 2007-4234
Application 10/929,891
component of crude oils (see FF 4). Moreover, Appellant failed to submit
any evidence establishing that the narrow definition proffered is the art
accepted definition of the term; nor has Appellant explained the discrepancy
between the proffered definition and his specification. Attorney argument
and conclusory statements, absent evidence, are entitled to little, if any,
weight. Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371, 68 USPQ2d 1769, 1778
(Fed. Cir. 2003); Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782, 193 USPQ 17, 22
(CCPA 1977). For similar reasons, Appellant's argument that not all slop
oil contains crystalline paraffin wax is also unpersuasive. Both Appellant's
and Ohkura's specifications relate to dispersing heavy oils, including crude
oils, without qualification.
Second, Appellant argues that Ohkura's dispersant will not convert
crystalline paraffin wax to amorphous wax . In particular, Appellant argues
that a plasticizer would be needed to convert crystalline wax to amorphous
wax in the absence of heat. However, Appellant has not pointed to evidence
of record to support these arguments. For example, the absence of heat may
only mean that dispersion by Ohkura's dispersant takes place more slowly.
Third, whether or not the method of Ohkura is intended for the same
circumstances Appellant disclosed, is irrelevant in an anticipation analysis as
long as the claim limitations are met. A method that reduces the surface
tension of a crystalline wax, converting it to an amorphous form, and then
disperses the wax in a diluent is within the scope of claim 1 whether it cleans
up heavy sludge material fouling beaches and wildlife after a crude oil spill
or cleans up the heavy material clogging crude oil pumping lines and storage
tanks.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013