Ex Parte MIYAGAWA et al - Page 16




              Appeal No. 2005-2750                                                                                     
              Application 09/460,221                                                                                   

              367 F.2d at 845, 151 USPQ at 345.  The court noted that in affirming the examiner’s                      
              rejection of the reissue claims on the ground of reissue recapture, the board held that                  
              the italicized language in the foregoing passage                                                         
                     *   *   *   points out specifically that the examiner would consider                              
                     allowance only with such specific limitations [the channel with the laterally                     
                     offset ear] pertaining to the mounting.                                                           
              (Brackets in Wesseler.)  367 F.2d at 845-46, 151 USPQ2d at 345.  The court disagreed:                    
                            On the above facts we do not agree with the conclusion of the                              
                     board that the remarks accompanying the three claims show "specifically                           
                     that the examiner would consider allowance only with such specific                                
                     limitations pertaining to mounting."  Insofar as the inclusion of a specific                      
                     limitation is concerned, the remarks establish that the attorney considered                       
                     he was obtaining protection for the two "highly useful results" in presenting                     
                     a generic and two species claims.  Insofar as the act of cancelling claims                        
                     is concerned the record does not show whether this was an admission                               
                     that those claims were unpatentable over the prior art or whether they                            
                     were cancelled and the amended claims were submitted to cure the                                  
                     "vague and indefinite" rejection.                                                                 
              (Footnotes omitted.)  367 F.2d at 846, 151 USPQ at 345-46.                                               
                     Appellants’ Wesseler argument clearly has merit with respect to claim 1.  The                     
              stated basis for the § 112, ¶ 2 rejection of that claim, which recited, inter alia, “N                   
              converging means whose aberrations have been respectively corrected for said N (N ≥                      
              2) disc substrates having different thicknesses,” was that “it is not clearly recited                    
              according to what structural element or means the aberrations had been corrected.”                       
              August 17, 1992, Office action, at 2.  This criticism was not additionally directed at any               
              of dependent claims 2 and 4-9, which described the converging means of the various                       
              embodiments in greater detail.  As a result, it is apparent that appellants could have                   

                                                          16                                                           





Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007