Appeal 2005-0801
Application 09/848,628
2. The Examiner’s prima facie case
Our findings of fact 84-86 set out the basis upon which the Examiner
made a recapture rejection. As noted in Finding 87, the record supports the
Examiner’s findings.
In the application which matured into the patent now sought to be
reissued, the Examiner “rejected” originally filed claims 1-5 and 7-20, as
noted in findings of fact 31-38. Applicants proceeded to amend independent
application claim 1 and added new independent claim 21 (by combining
originally filed claims 1, 2, 4, and 6) while canceling claims 2 and 6.
The Examiner then “rejected” amended claims 1 and 4-5, and
originally filed claims 11, 12, and 14-20, as noted in findings of fact 52-57.
Applicants proceeded to cancel independent application claims 1 (as
amended) and claim 11 (as filed). Applicants cancelled claims 3-5, 7, 9, and
12-20. Applicants also rewrote dependent claim 3 (combining original
claims 1 and 3), claim 7 (combining original claims 1 and 7), and claim 13
(combining original claims 11, 12, and 13), in independent form as claims
22, 24, and 25, respectively. Claims 21-25, 8, and 10, issued as renumbered
patent claims 1-7 (Finding 65).
The device of the original claims rejected by the Examiner based on
prior art did not contain certain limitations:
Limitation A: “a reinforcing groove centrally
located in said hood portion at a right angle to said
perforated plate” --found in patent claims 1, but
not original application claims 1, 11, and 17.
67
Page: Previous 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007