Appeal 2005-0801
Application 09/848,628
In a Second Office Action, dated June 24, 1998, the Examiner allowed
new claim 21 (having the reinforcing groove element), rejected claims 1, 4,
5, 11, 12, and 14-20, and objected to claims 3, 7-10, and 13 as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim. The Examiner indicated that claims
3, 7-10, and 13 were allowable because of the limitation regarding the L
shaped retainer member to hold the hood to its abutment surface (Second
Office Action 3). This limitation was in original patent application claim 3,
in original patent application claim 7 (claims 8-10 depended upon claim 7),
and in original patent application claim 13. Claim 3 depended upon claim 2
which depended upon claim 1. In response, Appellants requested
cancellation of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, and 11-20. Appellants added new claims,
including new claim 22 which included the subject matter of claims 1, 2, and
3.
Hence, in view of the aforementioned prosecution history, we select
original patent application claims 1, 2, and 4 as representative of surrendered
subject matter.10 A copy of these original patent application claims is set
forth below.
1. A waste cart that enables the drying of moist waste
therein including:
a hollow body having:
a lower portion;
an upper portion defining:
10 Deliberately canceling or amending a claim in an effort to overcome a
reference strongly suggests that the Appellant admits that the scope of the
claim before the cancellation or amendment is unpatentable. In re Clement,
131 F.3d 1464, 1468, 45 USPQ2d 1161, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
34
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007