Appeal 2006-1865
Application 09/660,433
Patent 5,802,641
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.
(7)
Simultaneously Selectively Clamping And Releasing the
Support Device And a Mounting Device
With respect to independent claims 14, 24, 48, 72, 81, and 91, Appellant
opines and concludes at pages 7, 13, 19, 23, 28, and 33, of the Brief, that the
broadening with respect to the claim feature simultaneously selectively clamping
and releasing said support device and mounting device is not an impermissible
broadening (does not relate to surrendered subject matter) and does not violate the
recapture rule.
Appellant presents no argument to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case as
to this point. Rather, Appellant merely states conclusions that are not supported by
any explanation. For example, Appellant does not explain why this Board should
adopt his conclusion that “[t]here is no material difference between what is
allegedly removed and the corresponding language of claim 14” (Br. 8). Such
- 56 -
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013