Appeal 2006-1865
Application 09/660,433
Patent 5,802,641
surrendered in obtaining allowance of the claims which appear in the patent sought
to be reissued.
29. The Examiner based the rejection of claims 14-100 on the grounds
that when faced in the original application with a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over the Klevstad prior art patent, Appellant made three significant
amendments to originally filed claim 1:
(1) First, Appellant amended rejected independent claim 1 to add
the requirements that the support device have “a longitudinal axis”, and that first
and second axes are “transverse to . . . said longitudinal axis”; amended original
application claim 1 ultimately became patent claim 1.
(2) Second, Appellant also amended rejected independent claim 1
to add the requirement of “simultaneously” selectively clamping and releasing
motion of said support device about said first and second axes.
(3) Third, Appellant also amended rejected independent claim 1 to
add the requirement of the support device being “fixed in said clamping device
from rotation about said longitudinal axis”.
30. In addition, the Examiner based the rejection of claims 14-100 on the
grounds that when faced in the original application with a rejection under
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013