Appeal 2007-0040 Application 10/170,069 Patent 6,073,699 44. The Examiner reasoned in part as follows (Supplemental Answer 5): The applicant chose not to prosecute any variation of . . . claim 11 . . . and accepted that all [allowed] claims would include the limitation of at least one second roller disposed beneath the first and second body parts. . . *** [A]pplicant is not permitted to provide a claim omitting the limitation of at least one second roller disposed beneath the first and second body parts and disposed entirely exteriorly of the interior opening to facilitate movement of a wellbore tubular with respect to the elevator and rely instead on a the elevator being openable on both sides; such a claim (i.e., claim 4) is claim subject matter that applicant surrendered by the cancellation of the claim 11. 45. The record supports the Examiner’s findings with respect to what limitations do not appear in reissue application claim 4 which were present in claims 1-3 of the original application, as allowed. 46. Additional findings of fact appear in the analysis and rejection sections infra as necessary. - 14 -Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013