Appeal No. 2002-1207 Page 3
Reissue Application No. 09/103,321
(page 5 of answer, first paragraph). Based on this rationale, the examiner concludes
that "the instant claims are broader in scope than the original claims because they
contain within their scope a conceivable process which would not have infringed the
original patent" (id.). The examiner further explains at page 6 of the answer that "it is
maintained that the instant claims are broader than the original patented claims
because reversing the operation of the contracting and expanding arrangements
presents a conceivable process, in at least one respect, which would not have infringed
upon the original patent" (second paragraph).
We concur with the statement made by the examiner at page 4 of the answer
that "the patented claims, containing a clear ambiguity, must be interpreted in light of
the original disclosure and/or specification" (page 4, last paragraph), i.e., in any
infringement action the patented claims would be interpreted in light of the specification
to define the apparatus intended by appellant and presently claimed. Hence, although
the patented claims may be construed to also define the more complicated apparatus
referred to by the examiner, the claims would also embrace the apparatus defined in
the claims of the reissue application on appeal. Hence, the instant claims would
infringe the patented claims and, accordingly, are not broader in scope than the
patented claims in any respect.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007