Appeal 2007-0040
Application 10/170,069
Patent 6,073,699
42. The Examiner based the rejection of claim 4 on the grounds that
when faced in the original application with a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Taylor, Appellant made at
least three significant amendments on October 18, 1999 (Supplemental
Answer 4-5):
(A) Appellant cancelled rejected claim 11 which included all
the limitations of reissue claim 4;
(B) Appellant cancelled all the remaining claims in the
application; and
(C) Appellant added new claims 28-32 all of which included
in some form the limitation of “at least one second roller disposed
beneath the first and second body parts and disposed entirely
exteriorly of the interior opening.”
Application claims 28-30 ultimately became patent claims 1-3.
43. Additionally, the Examiner based the rejection of claim 4 on the
grounds that when faced in the original application with a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112 and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Taylor,
Appellant made two significant arguments (Supplemental Answer 4):
(A) Appellant argued that no counterpart to claim 11 was
being presented (see Finding of Fact 25); and
(B) Appellant argued that the limitation of “at least one roller
disposed beneath body parts and entirely exteriorly of an opening
defined by the body parts” distinguished over the prior art (see
Finding of Fact 26).
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013