Appeal 2005-0801
Application 09/848,628
prosecution; and (2) “a reinforcing groove centrally located in
said hood at right angle to said perforated plate”, which was the
indicated allowable subject matter for independent [patent]
Claim 1. Both of these limitations were shown to be allowable
subject matter in Paper No. 5 from the previous prosecution of
Application number 08/887,238.
87. The Examiner further reasoned as follows (see
Examiner’s Answer entered November 27, 2002, pages 6-7) (emphasis
added):
In the original/surrendered application of the present case, Applicant
added new claim 21, which included the limitations of [originally
filed] Claims 1, 2, 4 and the limitations of [originally filed] Claim 6,
which was [previously] indicated as containing allowable subject
matter. Specifically, the limitation of Claim 6 that was indicated as
allowable was “a reinforcing groove centrally located in said hood at
right angle to said perforated plate.” (See Office Action, Paper No. 2
[of original Application number 08/887,238]). Also, Applicant added
new Claims 22-[25]. Claim 22 included the limitations of [originally
filed] Claim 1 and the limitations of [originally filed] Claim 3, which
was [previously] indicated as containing allowable subject matter, and
Claim 24 included the limitations of [originally filed] Claim 1 and the
limitations of [originally filed] Claim 7, which was [previously]
indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Specifically, the
limitation of [originally filed] Claims 3 and 7 that was indicated as
allowable was “the L shaped retainer member to hold said hood to its
abutment surface.” (See Final Office Action, Paper No. 5 [of original
Application number 08/887,238]).
* * *
In the present case, reissue claims 8 and 11 are broader in areas
relevant to the prior art rejections and narrower in aspects completely
unrelated to the prior art rejections. Specifically, reissue claims 8 and
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007