Appeal No. 2005-0642
Application No. 09/568,278
extends underneath rim 26 slightly, which assists lobes 96 in
preventing latch 80 from vibrating out of a latched position.” . . .
Nowhere does the specification teach that one securing means
requires the presence of the other to completely perform a securing
function.
The Examiner goes on to conclude (Supplemental Answer at page 10):
Thus, the broadening and narrowing of the claims of the present
reissue application do not relate to the same subject matter.
Based on the record before us, we find the Examiner’s conclusion to be the better
one.
We find nothing in the prosecution history of the patent to indicate that the
“securing function” was of particular importance in distinguishing over the prior
art. Rather, it was “the catch beam(s) performing the securing function” that was
added to patent claims 1, 4, and 9 (originally application claim 10) by amendment
during prosecution. In fact, application claim 10 (see Appendix 3) was rejected
based on the prior art when the “securing function” alone was added to originally
filed claim 10 (see appendix 2). It was not until “catch beams” were added to
claim 10 (see appendix 4) that it was found to distinguish over the prior art.
Therefore, Appellants have not shown that the claim is “materially
narrowed” or “narrower in an aspect germane to a prior art rejection” as is required
- 48 -
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007