Mere attorney argument fails at the Board
From Ex parte Rits
That is, Appellants have not factually responded to the Examiner specific citations to the references nor to the reasons why the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine the references. Arguments of counsel and discussions of caselaw, standing alone, cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. (In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139- 40 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Attorney argument is not evidence. (In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)). 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 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
That is, Appellants have not factually responded to the Examiner specific citations to the references nor to the reasons why the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine the references. Arguments of counsel and discussions of caselaw, standing alone, cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. (In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139- 40 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Attorney argument is not evidence. (In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)). 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 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home