Appeal No. 2005-0642
Application No. 09/568,278
As the Examiner accurately notes in the Final Office Action at page 3
(Emphasis added):
Specifically, In (sic) the parent application 08/429317 claims 1
and 4 were amended to include the following language: “said latch
further including at least one catch beam extending through another of
said slots, said catch beams defining catch edges which engage catch
surfaces defined by said another of said slots to secure said latch in
said latched position.” in order to define over the prior art and make
the claims allowable.
Further, as the Examiner accurately notes in the Final Office Action at
page 3 (Emphasis added):
Also applicant amended claim 10 to define over the prior art by
adding that a “latching beam” extends through a “first” slot and is
“positioned between a radial ledge defined by said first slot and said
upset”; and “first and second catch beams extend through second and
third slots in said connector body and engage catch edges defined by
said second and third slots”.
Finally, as the Examiner accurately notes, with respect to reissue application
claim 26:
[N]one of the above added language appears in the appealed
claims 26-46. . . (Examiner’s Answer, page 5).
- 42 -
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007