REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Fay et al WARREN 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE CORPORATION

Ex Parte Klimov et al NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY

Attorney argument is not a substitute for evidence. Moreover, as our reviewing court has remarked in a related context, “[e]ven were it obvious to a practitioner of the art [that the results were unexpected], applicants have the burden to provide the PTO with evidence showing such is the case.” In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Betts et al SIU 102(e)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Raghavan et al SAADAT 103(a) FLETCHER YODER (LUCENT)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Champion et al PAK 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kaufhold et al DANG 102(b) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI)
C/O FLETCHER YODER