Ex Parte Rosenberg et al - Page 47



             Appeal No. 2005-0642                                                                               
             Application No. 09/568,278                                                                         

                          Although the language reciting a catch beam has been removed                          
                   from the claims in the reissue application, new language has been                            
                   added which recites a hook element. Each of the independent claims                           
                   26, 37, 45, and 46, recites in part: “a hook . . . to prevent said latch                     
                   from moving out of the latched position.”                                                    
                          As is evident from the previous quotations, the broadening and                        
                   narrowing of the claims of the present reissue application relate to the                     
                   same subject matter.  The claim element “catch beam” in the parent                           
                   application relates to a portion of the latch which secures the latch in a                   
                   latched position.  The claim element “hook” in the reissue application                       
                   similarly relates to a portion of the latch which prevents the latch from                    
                   moving out of the latched position, i.e., securing the latch in the                          
                   latched position.  Thus, unlike the broadening and narrowing of the                          
                   claims in the Pannu reissue application, the claims in the present                           
                   reissue are narrowed in the same subject matter as their broadening.                         
                   Moreover, the claims in the reissue application are clearly not as                           
                   broad as the claims of the parent without the language reciting the                          
                   catch beams.                                                                                 
                          Thus, in accordance with the holding in Pannu, the Appellants                         
                   have avoided the rule against recapture, and so claims 26-46 of the                          
                   reissue application were improperly rejected.                                                
             We disagree.                                                                                       
                   As the Examiner accurately points out in the Supplemental Examiner’s                         
             Answer at pages 9-10:                                                                              
                   While it is true that the catch beam elements (94) and the hook                              
                   element (106) are both located on different portions of the latch means                      
                   (80) and both perform a securing function, the specification clearly                         
                   teaches that the two securing means operate independently of each                            
                   other.  This is shown to be true by the fact that neither securing means                     
                   needs the presence of the other to perform its securing function.  Note,                     
                   that the specification on lines 18-20 of column 6 states that “hook 106                      
                                                     - 47 -                                                     




Page:  Previous  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007