Appeal No. 1998-2911
Application 08/314,345
review of the patent’s prosecution history, we are satisfied
that the “in parallel planes” language does not relate to
surrendered subject matter.
The interview summary in the patent record fairly
reflects an agreement between the examiner and counsel that
claim 1, and by implication claim 2, would overcome the prior
art if amended to include the limitation that the deforming
means comprises members arranged for controlled relative
movement in opposed directions transverse to the direction of
liquid passage within the tubing. The interview summary makes
no mention of the additional “in parallel planes” limitation.
The appellants subsequently added both limitations to claims 1
and 2 with the explanation that the “in parallel planes”
limitation was consistent with the fact that the tubing is
deformed over a surface area defined by parallel planes rather
than a single plane. This is the only specific reason
expressed in the prosecution history of the patent as to why
the “in parallel planes” limitation was added to claims 1 and
2. There is nothing in the appellants' explanation or in any
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007