Appeal No. 1999-2781
Application No. 08/656,299
relative to the housing of the reeling device. However, these
pawls are not also biased to assume and remain in a "lock"
condition in which the pawl engages the ratchet wheel to
disallow such relative rotation and wherein the pawl is caused
to pass through a metastable position between those two
conditions, whereupon it will flip over to the other condition
and remain there under the bias of the spring until such time
that it is again caused to pass through the metastable
position, whereupon it will return to the first condition and
remain there under the bias of the spring. Thus, it is clear
to us that the pawls of Kell (Fig. 11) and Fritsche are not
"arranged as a mechanical toggle switch" which is biased to
assume and remain in either of a "free" condition and a "lock"
condition as required in appellant's claim 1 on appeal.
In accordance with the foregoing, the examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) based on Kell (Fig. 11) or Fritsche will not be
sustained. It follows that the examiner's rejection of claims
2 through 10, 12, 13 and 15, which depend from claim 1, on the
same basis will likewise not be sustained.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007