Appeal No. 2000-1763 Page 3
Application No. 09/227,037
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the appellant
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Rejections (1) and (2)
At issue in this appeal is the fact that claims 1-14 of the patent, which required steps of
extruding a first material through a first die to form a tube and moving the tube through a
second die while extruding a second material through the second die have been broadened such
that the first die is not expressly recited. In other words, claims 1-14 as amended in this reissue
application require merely extruding a first material to form a tube and moving the tube through
a die while extruding a second material through the die. Additionally, a new claim 15 has been
added in the reissue application which is even broader than amended claims 1-14, in that it
simply requires forming a first material into a tube and forming a second material into a tube-
support structure.1
The basis of rejections (1) and (2) is the same; i.e., that the claims are not supported by
the appellant's original disclosure, thereby running afoul of the written description requirement
1The enlarged scope of the claims in this reissue application is not prohibited by the fourth paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 251, as this reissue application was filed on January 7, 1999, within two years of the January 7, 1997 issue
date of the patent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007