PTAB discusses declarations comprising legal conclusions in Ex parte KLINGEMANN
Of legal assertions in declarations, note
We note Appellant’s reliance
on the Klingemann Declaration, 6
which states that “there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation
in Gong et al. that
would lead one skilled in the art to use the NK-92 cell line
in vivo to lyse tumor cells or as a cancer treatment,
much less successfully reduce such a
use to practice as a method of trea
ting mammals” (Decl. 7, ¶ 24c).
However, “Appellant’s opinion on the ultimate legal issue is not evidence in
In re Lindell, 385 F.2d 453, 456 (CCPA 1967). In addition, we
conclude that Appellant has not provided adequate reasoning to persuasively
support this statement.
is analyzed as of the date of an
articulated identified problem and evidence
of efforts to solve that problem.”
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
, 988 F.2d 1165, 1178 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). Appellant has not provided
evidence that the
method of claim 20 solves a long-felt but unresolved need.
In addition, “[m]ere recognition of latent
properties in the prior art does not
render nonobvious an otherwise known
In re Baxter Travenol Labs.
, 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir.