Ex Parte Cannata et al - Page 29



           Appeal No. 2006-1049                                                                     
           Application No. 09/667,826                                                               

           31, and rejected independent claim 29; original application claim 37 ultimately          
           became patent claim 35.                                                                  


                                     D.  Examiner’s Rejections                                      
                                                (1)                                                 
                                          35 U.S.C. § 251                                           
                 81. The Examiner rejected reissue application claims 40-50 and 52-58 as            
           being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 251 for recapturing subject matter                  
           surrendered in obtaining allowance of claims during prosecution of the application       
           which matured into the patent sought to be reissued.                                     
                 82. The Examiner reasoned as follows (see Final Office Action entered              
           January 17, 2002, pages 2-3):                                                            
                       The reissue claims 40, 41, 42, 43, 52, and 58 delete a limitation            
                 ("parallel connected") from the patent claims. Therefore, the reissue              
                 claims are broader than the patent claims in the aspect of the electrical          
                 connection of the plurality of circuit elements. The broader aspect of             
                 the reissue claims relates to subject matter that applicant previously             
                 surrendered during the prosecution of the original application. The                
                 limitation ("parallel connected") omitted in the reissue claims was                
                 present in the claims of the original application (at least claims 2-4, 8,         
                 24, 26, 37, 42, 44, and 45). The examiner's reasons for allowance in               
                 the original application stated that it was that limitation ("the means            
                 for correcting specified by independent claim 2, 24, 33 or 37" where               
                 the means for correcting specified a correction circuit including a                
                 plurality of parallel connected circuit elements and means for                     
                                               - 29 -                                               




Page:  Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007