Appeal No. 96-2866 Page 16
Application No. 08/185,221
that a wire which was oscillated would have comparatively
greater holding strength than one inserted by rotation. These
statements, are once again not commensurate in scope with the
claimed subject matter. That is, there is no requirement in
claims 20 and 21 that the wire be advanced with a force that is
less than that required by a rotary drill or that the fixation
wire requires comparatively more force for removal than a
fixation wire inserted by rotation. Moreover, these statements
are merely conclusory in nature and it is unclear what the
declarant's conclusions are based on. Affidavits and declara-
tions fail in their purpose when they recite conclusions with
few facts to buttress the conclusions. See In re Brandstadter,
484 F.2d 1395, 1406, 179 USPQ 286, 294 (CCPA 1973), In re
Thompson, supra, and In re DeBlauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222
USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We also observe that, if the
"even more unexpected" result of the oscillating wire having
comparatively greater holding strength is based on the
comparative showing in Fig. 8 of the drawings, then a
comparatively greater holding strength is achieved only with
respect to certain size wires at certain locations, rather than
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007