Appeal 2006-1865
Application 09/660,433
Patent 5,802,641
35 U.S.C. § 112 and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over the Klevstad prior
art patent, Appellant made two insignificant amendments to originally filed
claim 1:
(1) First, Appellant amended rejected independent claim 1 to
provide proper antecedent basis to the originally claimed requirement of
“abduction and lithotomy dimensions”.
(2) Second, Appellant amended rejected independent claim 1 to
grammatically clarify the originally claimed requirement of “selectively clamp and
release, simultaneously, said support and said mounting device”.
31. Finally, 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 extensive
significant arguments with respect to amended claim 1 (Examiner’s Answer 5:3).
(See also the Findings of Fact 14-19 supra with respect to Appellant’s arguments
regarding claim limitations (1)-(7).)
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013