Appeal No. 2005-0642
Application No. 09/568,278
258 F.3d at 1371, 59 USPQ2d at 1600. Stated differently, have Appellants shown
the reissue claim, while broader in an aspect unrelated to the rejection, is narrower
in an aspect germane to a prior art rejection -- thus the recapture rule does not bar
the claim. In re Clement, 131 F.3d at 1470, 45 USPQ2d at 1165.
(2)
Arguments of Appeal Brief filed May 24, 2001
Appellants point out at page 7 of the Brief that “the Examiner acknowledges
. . . the claims [26-47] are more narrow in now claiming a ‘hook.’” We agree with
this analysis. The originally filed claims of the application that resulted in the
patent for which reissue is sought recited the following language at claim 1:
including latching means, . . . wherein said latching means extends
through one of said slots and is positioned between one of said ledges
and said upset to further secure said male member in said connector
body.
The language “to further secure said male member” limits the “latching means” to
the structure that performs this function. Appellants’ specification recites this
function in the form of “preventing withdrawal of male member” which is
performed by latching beam 100 with outwardly facing latching edge 102 engaging
slot ledge 36 and an inwardly facing latching edge 104 engaging upset 14
- 44 -
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007