Appeal No. 2002-1207 Page 2
Reissue Application No. 09/103,321
medium transversely to said plurality of control units.
The present application is a reissue of appellant's original patent U.S. 4,726,752.
Appellant filed this reissue in order to correct obvious errors in the patent claims. In
particular, the appealed claims now recite that the heat expanding arrangement
decreases, rather than increases, the thickness of the lip opening of the extrusion die,
whereas the cooling blocks are used to increase, rather than decrease, the thickness of
the lip opening.
There is no dispute that the reissue claims on appeal properly correct the errors
in the patent claims.
Appealed claims 1, 3-6, and 8-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 "as
being broadened in a reissue application filed outside the two year statutory period"
(page 3 of answer, penultimate paragraph).
We have carefully reviewed the respective positions advanced by appellant and
the examiner. In so doing, we concur with appellant that the examiner's rejection is not
well-founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially
those reasons expressed in appellant's principal and reply briefs on appeal.
The examiner's answer is somewhat confusing inasmuch as the examiner states
that "it appears that Applicant's correction of the clear ambiguity should not be
construed as broadening" (page 4 of answer, last paragraph, emphasis added). The
examiner further explains, however, that "[e]ven though the specification may suggest
that the patented claims were not intended or disclosed by Applicant, the patented
claims recite a structure which would be mechanically operable (albeit cumbersome)"
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007