Appeal No. 2005-0841
Application No. 08/230,083
APPLICATION OF THE RECAPTURE DOCTRINE TO CLAIM 14
Applying the test set forth in Clement, we first "determine
whether and in what 'aspect' the reissue claim[] . . . [is]
broader than the patent claims." Id. at 1468, 45 USPQ2d at 1164.
We note that independent patent claims 1 and 11 include different
limitations that were considered to be allowable over the prior
art. Therefore, we must separately compare reissue claim 14 to
the closest patent claim that depends from claim 1 and also the
closest patent claim that depends from claim 11. Patent claims 9
and 11 have the most limitations in common with reissue claim 14
without including many additional limitations. Claim 14 is
broader than patent claim 9 in that the limitation "wherein the
inner frame (4) has a surrounding rim (7) carrying rib members
(8) spaced transversely with stays (9) extending therefrom and a
surrounding frame (10) joining the stays (9)," hereafter referred
to as the inner frame limitation, has been deleted. Also, the
springy tongue is not recited as being "separate from the outer
housing (3)." Similarly, claim 14 is broader than patent claim
11 in that the limitation that the springy tongue (22') is
"formed separate from the outer housing (3), said springy tongue
(22') being arranged on a locking element (30) which can be
connected with the outer housing (3), and said locking element
-62-
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007