Appeal 2006-1068
Reissue Application 08/425,766
a liquid filter for capturing said particulate matter contained in said
fired exhaust and for chemically treating said fired exhaust gasses to
reduce the quantity of CO, NO and SO contained in said fired exhaust.
Claims 1-203 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 251 based on the Examiner’s determination that the Appellants’
aforenoted attempt to enlarge claim scope constitutes impermissible recapture.
liquid filter means for capturing said particulate matter contained in said fired
exhaust and for chemically treating said fired exhaust gasses to reduce CO,
NO, HCL and SO2 contained in said fired exhaust.
The issues raised in this appeal relate equally to both of the Appellants’
independent claims. Therefore, our analyses and determinations regarding
representative claim 1 are fully applicable to claim 15. We focus on only claim 1
for clarity and ease of exposition.
3On page 3 of the Brief filed September 7, 1999, the Appellants state that “[a]ll
[c]laims, 1-20, can be considered as a single group with respect to the applicability
of the recapture rule.” See then pending regulation 37 CFR § 1.192 (1999).
Consistent with this statement, Appellants have not separately argued any of the
dependent claims on appeal. We observe, however, that certain of the dependent
claims appear to be not subject to the recapture criticism expressed by the
Examiner. For example, claim 19, which depends from claim 1, recites the very
limitation whose omission from claim 1 engendered the Examiner’s recapture
determination. Notwithstanding this circumstance, we will restrict our assessment
of this appeal by focusing only on representative independent claim 1 in
conformance with the Appellants’ aforequoted statement.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007