Ex Parte Steenburg - Page 53



           Appeal 2006-1865                                                                         
           Application 09/660,433                                                                   
           Patent 5,802,641                                                                         

                                                (5)                                                 
                       Simultaneously Selectively Clamping And Releasing Said                       
                           Support Device About The First And Second Axes                           
                 With respect to independent claims 14, 24, 48, 72, 81, and 91, Appellant           
           argues at pages 7, 13, 18, 23, 27, and 32, of the Brief, that the broadening with        
           respect to the simultaneously selectively clamping and releasing said support            
           device about the first and second 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 the term “simultaneously” “refers to the ability to both     
           clamp and release” (Br. 7).  As the Examiner correctly points out (Finding of            
           Fact 39) and as we find in Appellant’s Specification (U.S. Patent 5,802,641, col. 3,     
           ll. 62-64), the “simultaneously” refers to releasing in plural dimensions (or axes) at   
           the same time or clamping in plural dimensions at the same time.  Appellant’s            
           erroneous argument fails to persuade us that the Examiner erred.                         
                 Also, 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           



                                               - 53 -                                               

Page:  Previous  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013