Appeal No. 1998-0454 Page 7
Application No. 08/417,985
transmission member, in contrast to the TFDCO member, operates
the trigger member which in turn operates the TFDCO member, we
find no such broadening. The examiner has not indicated what,
exactly, is alleged to have been broadened. As with claim 1,
we find that this addition of claim 4 merely corrects an
obvious error in the original patent and we find no basis, on
the record before us, for finding that either amended claim 1
or newly added claims 4 through 6 constitutes a broadening of
the claimed subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007