Appeal 2006-1865
Application 09/660,433
Patent 5,802,641
about the second plurality of axes” “is confusing and . . . does not explain how the
comparison is relevant to the recapture issue” (Br. 7). Appellant then immediately
concludes that “the support device is fixed to the clamping device” because in-part
the claim recites “the support device is clamped against movement about the
second plurality of axes” (Br. 7-8). Since Appellant himself points to the new
limitation in an attempt to show the deleted limitation is still present in the claim,
this rebuts Appellant’s contention that he was confused by the Examiner
comparing this new limitation to the deleted limitation.
As to the “fixed from rotation . . .” limitation, we find nothing in the cited
sections (Br. 8) of the reissue claims or elsewhere in the reissue claims that
includes this limitation. 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 85 and 95, Appellant concludes, without
further explanation at pages 30 and 35, of the Brief, that this limitation is not
dropped from the claims and Appellant’s arguments during prosecution do not
- 55 -
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013