Appeal No. 2005-0841
Application No. 08/230,083
claim 10 in another aspect, according to principle (3)(a) of
Clement, the recapture rule bars the claim.
Comparing claim 14 to original patent application claim 11,
we reach the same conclusion. Specifically, claim 14 is broader
than original patent application claim 10 at least in an aspect
germane to a prior art rejection (i.e., the limitation added to
overcome the reference), by failing to include either the inner
frame limitation or the dovetail guide limitation, but also
narrower than original patent application claim 11 in other
aspects, a second springy tongue and the first springy tongue
being spaced from the wall. Each narrowing limitation is "an[]
aspect completely unrelated to the rejection," Id., in that it
does not narrow the claim regarding the specific subject matter
of either the inner frame or the dovetail guide. Therefore,
comparing reissue claim 14 to original patent application claim
11, according to principle (3)(a) of Clement, the recapture rule
bars the claim.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner rejecting reissue claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 251 should
be affirmed.
-65-
Page: Previous 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007