Appeal No. 1999-2781
Application No. 08/656,299
is inconsistent with appellant's specification, which
overlooks the recited conjunction "and" and overlooks the fact
that the element in question in claim 1 is recited as a
mechanical toggle switch. In this regard, appellant argues
that the patents to Kell, Fritsche and Fertier applied by the
examiner disclose pawls which are biased in a single
direction, toward a "free" condition, and cannot be said to be
biased toward either of two conditions as is required of the
pawl "arranged as a mechanical toggle switch" in claim 1 on
appeal. We agree with appellant.
In understanding the language of appellant's claim 1 on
appeal that the "pawl is arranged as a mechanical toggle
switch" which is biased to assume and remain in either of a
"free" condition and a "lock" condition, we have turned to
appellant’s specification at page 4 (quoted above) where
appellant has indicated that the pawl arranged as a mechanical
toggle switch is "at the heart of this invention," and we have
interpreted the language of claim 1 on appeal to require a
pawl that is arranged to function as described in appellant's
specification. More particularly, a pawl that is "arranged as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007