Appeal No. 2005-0841
Application No. 08/230,083
APPLICATION OF THE RECAPTURE RULE TO CLAIM 16
In applying the first step of Clement, we find that claim 16
is broader than patent claim 1 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)" has been deleted.40
Claim 16 is broader than patent claim 11 in that the
limitation "wherein the clip connection (6) comprises a springy
tongue (22') 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 (30) being guided over a dovetail guide (31) on the outer
surface of the outer housing (3)" has been deleted.
The prosecution history of Application No. 07/642,475 set
forth in the plurality opinion establishes each of original patent
application claims 1, 3-5 and 7-11 as surrendered subject matter
since the appellant either canceled or amended each of those claims
in order to overcome a prior art rejection. In compliance with the
second step set forth in Clement, we now must determine whether the
surrendered subject matter has crept into the rejected reissue
claim. We therefore compare rejected reissue claim 16 with the
surrendered subject matter (i.e., original patent application
claims 1, 3-5 and 7-11).
40 See footnote 29.
-98-
Page: Previous 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007