Appeal No. 2005-0841
Application No. 08/230,083
With respect to reissue claim 16, applicant presents an
analogous argument, at pages 15-20 of the Appeal Brief filed
October 4, 2000. The argument related to reissue claim 16, the
gist of which is restated in subsequent briefs, is not persuasive
for the reasons assigned to reissue claim 14.
There is an additional reason why applicant's argument is
not persuasive with respect to reissue claim 14. Applicant's
argument addresses only how the amendment added the subject
matter of original patent application claim 2 to rejected claim 1
to create new claim 15 (claim 1 of the patent). No argument has
been made for patent claims 2-4 and 6-10, all of which were
narrowed by the same amendment in response to the examiner's
rejection. Patent claims 2-4 and 6-10 correspond to original
patent application claims 3-5 and 7-11, none of which included
the subject matter of original patent application claim 2.
Applicant's amendment filed September 12, 1991, amended each of
original patent application claims 3-5 and 7-11 (by their
dependency from amended application claim 15) to add the subject
matter of original patent application claim 2. Applicant
has not satisfactorily explained why at the time of the amendment
one skilled in the art would not reasonably have viewed the
subject matter broader than the narrowing amendment to original
application claims 3-5 and 7-11 as having been surrendered.
- 40 -40
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007