Appeal 2006-1865
Application 09/660,433
Patent 5,802,641
conclusions, without explanation, are of minimal evidentiary value and do not
persuade us that the Examiner has erred.
With respect to dependent claim 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
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.
(8)
Appellant’s Prosecution Arguments
With respect to independent claims 14, 24, 48, 72, 81, and 91, Appellant
argues at pages 8-11, 14-16, 19-21, 24-25, 28-30, and 33-35, of the Brief, that
“Appellant’s arguments in the amendment of February 17, 1998 filed during
prosecution of parent application serial No. 813,708 filed March 7, 1977 are
relatively brief.” Appellant goes on to argue “the argument for patentability to be
considered in recapture is limited to [the] two axis release irrespective of
limitations alleged to have been dropped in this reissue.” Appellant then
- 57 -
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013