Ex Parte Hollingsworth - Page 14
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2007 > Ex Parte Hollingsworth - Page 14
Appeal 2007-0040
Application 10/170,069
Patent 6,073,699
44. The Examiner reasoned in part as follows (Supplemental
Answer 5):
The applicant chose not to prosecute any variation of . . .
claim 11 . . . and accepted that all [allowed] claims would
include the limitation of at least one second roller disposed
beneath the first and second body parts. . .
***
[A]pplicant is not permitted to provide a claim omitting the
limitation of at least one second roller disposed beneath the first
and second body parts and disposed entirely exteriorly of the
interior opening to facilitate movement of a wellbore tubular
with respect to the elevator and rely instead on a the elevator
being openable on both sides; such a claim (i.e., claim 4) is
claim subject matter that applicant surrendered by the
cancellation of the claim 11.
45. The record supports the Examiner’s findings with respect to
what limitations do not appear in reissue application claim 4 which were
present in claims 1-3 of the original application, as allowed.
46. Additional findings of fact appear in the analysis and rejection
sections infra as necessary.
- 14 -
Page: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
