Appeal 2006-1865
Application 09/660,433
Patent 5,802,641
exclusion or restriction.’ ”); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299
F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2002).
Id, 367 F.3d at 1369, 70 USPQ2d at 1834.
As to claims 14 and 91, we conclude that Appellant has not rebutted the
Examiner’s prima facie showing of recapture based on this limitation.
(3)
First and Second Axes Transverse to Longitudinal Axis Limitation
With respect to independent claims 14, 24, 48, 72, 81, and 91, Appellant
argues at pages 7, 12, 17, 22, 27, and 32, of the Brief, that the broadening with
respect to the transverse relationship of the first and second axes with the
longitudinal axis is not an impermissible broadening (does not relate to surrendered
subject matter) and does not violate the recapture rule. We disagree.
Appellant argues that since the preferred embodiment of the specification
includes this limitation, these claims (which cover the preferred embodiment) are
not broadened in this aspect. Again, Appellant is asking this Board to read
limitations into the claims from the specification, and again we decline to do so for
the reasons previously set forth.
With respect to dependent claims 16, 33, and 62, Appellant concludes
without further explanation at pages 11, 16, and 21, of the Brief, that this limitation
- 51 -
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013