Appeal 2005-0801
Application 09/848,628
83. The Examiner held that:
[I]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
provided support members under the false bottom disclosed in Schafer
et al. in view of the teaching of Matry. The motivation for doing so
would have been to provide the false bottom disclosed in Schafer et
al. with more support, thus allowing greater waste weight to be placed
upon the false bottom. (Reissue Final action 4)
84. The Examiner further held that:
As to the positioning of the support members so that each of the
support members has clearance from an inner surface of the waste cart
when the false bottom is pivoted away from the bottom portion of the
waste cart, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the
requisite skill to position the inserted support members disclosed in
Matry onto the pivoting false bottom disclosed in Schafer et al. in a
manner that would still allow the false bottom to pivot properly.
(Reissue Final action 4)
EXAMINER'S REJECTIOIN BASED ON REISSUE RECAPTURE
85. The Examiner rejected reissue application claims 8-13 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 251 for recapturing subject matter
surrendered in obtaining allowance of claims during prosecution of the
application, which matured into the patent sought to be reissued.
86. The Examiner reasoned as follows (Reissue Final action
3):
Recapture exists because of the following omitted/broadened
claim limitations from the previous application: (1) “at least one
L shaped retainer member to hold said hood to said abutment
surface”, which was the indicated allowable subject matter for
independent [patent] Claims 2, 4, and 5 during the previous
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007