Appeal 2006-1989
Application 09/772,278
Patent 5,996,948
Rather, it was broadened or unaffected by the amended language. We
agree.
While at first blush we find support for the Examiner’s prima facie
showing of recapture, a closer review finds Appellant’s position to be
correct. First, as to the limitation “a lower rim of wire steel forming a closed
geometrical configuration circumscribing a second surface area with said
first surface area being larger than said second surface area,” this limitation
was part of claim 1 as originally filed and was not added by amendment.
Therefore, there can be no surrender with respect to this limitation.
Second, as to the added limitation “at a location below the lower rim,”
this limitation is redundant to the limitation that follows it in the claim (“in a
configuration forming a base support for the stand to rest upon”) which
inherently requires interconnection of the uprights be below every other
element of the chafing stand. Therefore, removal of this limitation does not
in fact broaden the claim.
Third, as to the added limitation “and to said lower rim at a relatively
equal distance below the point of attachment to said upper rim,” this
- 18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013