Appeal No. 1997-3340 Page 5
Application No. 08/323,500
(39) and engaging hook (43). Once the rear of the plate has cleared a chamfered surface (74)
on the clamping hook (39), the clamping member is permitted to rotate back to its original
position under the biasing force of a biasing spring (20). Although not expressly illustrated or
stated in appellant's specification, it is clear that the combination of contact by the front of the
plate against the plate engaging member (42) and the camming effect of the angled surface (72)
at the rear of the plate against the clamping hook (39) of the plate clamping member (38) causes
the engaging member (42) and the clamping member (38) to rotate in opposite angular
directions to increase the distance between the clamping hook (39) and engaging hook (43) and
that, after insertion, the force of the biasing spring (20) causes both the clamping member and
the engaging member to rotate back to their neutral positions, once again in opposite angular
directions about the axis of the pedal shaft (12).
The examiner's position (final rejection, page 5) in rejecting claims 6-9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is that the limitation in claim 6, to the effect that the second pedal
portion is "independently" rotatable relative to the first pedal portion, is imprecise because the
first pedal portion (plate engaging unit 42, 44, 18) and second pedal portion (plate clamping
unit 38, 40, 14, 16) are both mounted together to form a pedal and thus inherently rotate
together. This position is not well taken. While the plate engaging unit and plate clamping unit
are both mounted about the pedal shaft (12) for rotation thereabout, these units are mounted to
each other via a spring bushing (22), biasing spring (20) and outer bushing (26) so as to permit
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007