Appeal 2006-1865
Application 09/660,433
Patent 5,802,641
having an axis transverse to the longitudinal axis. These limitations
were added during the prosecution of claim 1 in the original
application, and were not present in the claims as originally filed.
35. The record supports the Examiner's findings with respect to what
limitations do not appear in reissue application claims 14-100 which were present
in claim 1 of the original application, as allowed.
36. An Examiner’s Answer (“the Answer”) was entered March 25, 2003.
37. A Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (“the Supplemental Answer”)
was entered April 20, 2005.
38. In the Supplemental Answer at page 3, the Examiner cited the
following one of Appellant’s extensive significant arguments made with respect to
amended claim 1 to overcome the Klevstad prior art patent.
Klevstad does not teach an actuator device that simultaneously
selectively clamps and releases the support device and the mounting
device to allow movement of the support device jointly about first and
second axes transverse to the longitudinal axis of the support device
and to each other.
39. The Examiner reasoned (see Supplemental Answer 3):
Hence, from the specification, the construction of the claim, the
amendment and the accompanying arguments, it is clear that the
invention was claimed (as amended) to selectively clamp and
selectively release the support device and the mounting device to
control movement, or lack thereof, of the support device
simultaneously (i.e., occurring at the same time or concurrently) about
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013