Appeal 2006-1865
Application 09/660,433
Patent 5,802,641
repetitively (42 times) makes arguments and conclusions with respect to
“Appellant’s arguments during prosecution of the ‘641 patent.”
At no point in these sixteen pages does Appellant ever inform this Board of
exactly which “arguments in the amendment,” “argument for patentability,” or
“arguments during prosecution” Appellant is referencing. We will not speculate as
to which arguments in the parent are being referenced. Nor does Appellant ever
inform this Board why he concludes that such arguments in the parent would not
be viewed by an objective observer as a surrender generating argument. Kim, 465
F.3d at 1323, 80 USPQ2d at 1502.
We conclude that these Appellant arguments have not rebutted the
Examiner’s prima facie showing of recapture.
(9)
Supporting Device Moving Jointly About First And Second Axes Limitation
With respect to this limitation argued in the parent (See the Findings of
Fact 19 supra with respect to Appellant’s arguments regarding claim limitation (1))
and relied on by the Examiner (Findings of Fact 31), Appellant has presented no
rebuttal arguments in this brief.
- 58 -
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013