A more thorough explanation:

Definition: To respond in detail to a patent examiner's decision that the patent application claims more than one invention and ask that the restriction requirement be reconsidered. The response must explain why restriction should not be required, not just say that the requirement is wrong. If you don't traverse a requirement, you lose the right to appeal the decision.

Example 1: A patent examiner reviews a patent application and decides that it claims more than one invention. The examiner issues a restriction requirement, which means the applicant must choose which invention to pursue in the patent application. The applicant responds by traversing the requirement and explaining why the inventions are not distinct and separate. The applicant argues that the inventions are related and should be considered together in the patent application.

Example 2: Another patent examiner reviews a patent application and decides that it claims more than one invention. The examiner issues a restriction requirement, which means the applicant must choose which invention to pursue in the patent application. The applicant responds by simply saying that the requirement is wrong and does not provide any explanation or argument. This response does not traverse the requirement and forfeits the right to appeal the decision.

These examples illustrate how to traverse a requirement in a patent application. It is important to respond in detail and explain why the restriction requirement should not be required. Failure to do so forfeits any rights to appeal the decision.