Appeal 2006-1865
Application 09/660,433
Patent 5,802,641
32. The Examiner reasoned as follows (Final Office Action entered May
21, 2002, pages 2-3): 3
The applicant is attempting to claim the supporting device
without reference to a longitudinal axis and a clamping device having
an axis transverse to the longitudinal axis. The applicant is also
attempting to drop out any reference to a clamping device that can
simultaneously clamp and release the supporting device relative to the
clamping device about the first and second (longitudinal and
transverse) axes. These limitations were expressly added during the
prosecution of the 08/813,708 application in order to define over the
subject matter disclosed in the Klevstad patent. These [sic] inclusion
of these limitations in the original claims 1 to 13 were also relied upon
by the applicant as part of the arguments used to secure an allowance
over the Klevstad patent.
33. The Examiner further reasoned (Final Office Action 4):
The [reissue] independent claims therefore removes or broadens
almost all the limitations added to old claim 1 during the prosecution
in order to define over the Klevstad reference, these limitations were
referred to and relied upon extensively in the applicant's arguments as
defining over the Klevstad patent. Since these limitations were added
in order to secure an allowance, any attempt to now drop them out
altogether is an attempt at recapture.
34. Additionally, the Examiner reasoned (Final Office Action 4):
This is supported by the applicant's declaration, in which it is stated
clearly that the mistake sought for correction was limiting claim 1 to a
supporting device with a longitudinal axis and the clamping device
3 The parenthetical “(longitudinal and traverse)” is in error as the clamping is about
two axis which are transverse to each other and to the longitudinal axis. The
parenthetical should read “(transverse to each other)”.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013