Opinion ID: 748431
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Change of Furnace to Radiant Tube

Text: 24 The district court held that the change from the term furnace in original claims 2 and 13 to radiant tube, the only limitation in original dependent claims 7 and 18, constituted a substantive change. That is incorrect, for by this change Bloom did no more than restate original claims 7 and 18 in independent form. As stated in 35 U.S.C. § 112 p 4, a dependent claim incorporates by reference all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Bloom achieved the same result by moving the radiant tube element from dependent claims 7 and 18 into their associated independent claims. Thus this change, standing alone, did not change the scope of original claims 7 and 18. 25