Sarcastic argument fails at PTAB

from Ex parte Stringer


Appellant responds by arguing “What could be more clear than that?” App.
Br. 7. Appellant then states that, in the interest of “even more” clarity,
Appellant will amend the claims, correct the dependency of claims 29 and
40, and provide antecedent basis to claims 23 and 24. Id. We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and we therefore sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.



AND


Appellant argues that Langer is inoperable, and that it is physically
impossible for Langer to have an end of a post positioned within a post
retaining section, such that Langer is “so deficient that no amount of
rehabilitation can teach Appellant’s invention.” App. Br. 5. Such
conclusory statements, lacking any explanation of the inoperability and
deficiency, are unpersuasive.



AND


Lastly, Appellant argues that Langer and Siegers cannot be combined
because “[t]he approach of the references are so contrary to each other that
one cannot combine them.” App. Br. 9. Appellant has provided no
explanation regarding why the approaches of Langer and Siegers are so
contrary that they cannot be combined. We therefore are not persuaded by
this argument.