Appeal No. 2004-0659
Application No. 09/111,978
substantially uniformly spaced” and [projector and detector
in a] “substantially fixed relationship to one another” since
those limitations do not further distinguish the claims from
the prior art, and thus are not pertinent to the original
rejection.
We disagree. Our findings of fact 27-31 set out the amendments and statements made by
appellant in response to the Examiner’s rejection of the originally filed claims. As noted
in Finding 31, appellant specifically cited the importance of the same three limitations
now “insisted to by the Examiner.”
As with limitation A, limitation B, and limitation C, appellant does not favor us
with any showing that at the time the amendment was made, one skilled in the art could
not reasonably have viewed the subject matter broader than appellant’s statement on the
record (Finding 31) as having been surrendered.
(3) OTHER ARGUMENTS
We have considered all other arguments made by appellant in the Appeal Brief
and subsequent Briefs. None has convinced us that the Examiner erred in rejecting
reissue claims 30 through 85 based on recapture.
- 51 -
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007