Appeal No. 97-2785
Application 08/173,698
patent is seen to teach nor is it seen to lie
within the scope of the patent claims to have a
slope which does not constantly change. [answer,
page 6].
The rejections of the appealed claims under § 251 and §
112, first paragraph are not sustainable. The critical inquiry
in these rejections of the broadened reissue claims is whether
the original disclosure indicates or suggests that the omitted
or broadened limitation “was essential or critical to either
the operation or patentability of the invention.” In re
Peters, 723 F.2d 891, 893, 221 USPQ 952, 953 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In the present case, the examiner has not established
that the limitation pertaining to the truncated surface means
as defined in patent claim 1 was either critical or essential
to either the operation or the patentability of the invention.
In fact, mere cursory inspection of the embodiment shown in
Figure 2 of the patent drawings reveals that because the
truncated surface 29 is spaced from the locking ring 32 except
at a point immediately adjacent to the relief surface 26, it
may be of any configuration so long as it does not interfere
with the movement of the locking ring to its illustrated
locking position.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007