Appeal 2006-1865
Application 09/660,433
Patent 5,802,641
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 claim 78, 85, and 95, Appellant concludes,
without further explanation at pages 26, 30, and 35, of the Brief, that this limitation
is not dropped from the claims and Appellant’s arguments during prosecution do
not amount to surrender. Such conclusions, without explanation, are of minimal
evidentiary value and do not persuade us that the Examiner has erred.
We conclude that Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie
showing of recapture based on this limitation.
(6)
Support Device Fixed from Rotation About The Longitudinal Axis
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 support device being fixed from rotation about 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 contends that the Examiner’s comparison of this limitation to the
now claimed new limitation of “the support device is clamped against movement
- 54 -
Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013