Appeal No. 2006-1049
Application No. 09/667,826
80. The Examiner based the rejection of claims 40-50 and 52-58 on the
grounds that when faced in the original application with a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the Lung and Masarik prior art patents,
applicants made four significant amendments:
(1) First, applicants amended allowable dependent claim 2 to
combine the limitations of allowable dependent claim 2 with rejected independent
claim 1; original application claim 2 ultimately became patent claim 1.
(2) Second, applicants amended allowable dependent claim 24 to
combine the limitations of allowable dependent claim 24 with rejected dependent
claim 23 and rejected independent claim 1; original application claim 24 ultimately
became patent claim 26.
(3) Third, applicants amended allowable dependent claim 33 to
combine the limitations of allowable dependent claim 33 with rejected dependent
claims 28-32 and rejected independent claim 29; original application claim 33
ultimately became patent claim 27.
(4) Fourth, applicants amended dependent claim 37 to combine
limitations of allowable dependent claim 37 with rejected dependent claims 30 and
- 28 -
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007