if it is to rebut that presumption.” Id. at 1366-67. EPC argues that the amendments, even if narrowing, were not for reasons of patentability, because the pertinent claims of the first amendment were allowed, and EPC canceled those claims and filed a new application to attempt to make the patent read on the Donaldson Informer, not to avoid prior art. The court disagrees. The prosecution history recounted above shows that the claims of the original application were rejected as either anticipated by or obvious in light of prior art. Even if the claims of the first amended application were allowable, the inventor canceled those claims, choosing to file a continuation and second amendment in an attempt to make the patent read on the Donaldson Informer. See Festo, 344 F.3d at 1366 (<HOLDING>). The second amendment was also rejected in
holding inter alia that a voluntary amendment may give rise to prosecution history estoppel holding that a narrowing amendment made to satisfy any requirement of the patent act may give rise to an estoppel holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action holding the voluntary assumption of a duty will give rise to liability if the performance is not done with reasonable care holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages