Appeal No. 1999-2781
Application No. 08/656,299
With regard to the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 10, 12, 13 and 15 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based on Fertier, we note that the pawl (39) seen in Figures 1
and 3 of this patent is 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 we have interpreted
that language above, and accordingly we will not sustain this
rejection. The mere fact that the pawl (39) is biased to
assume and remain in a "free" condition by spring (41) and
that the user can override that condition by operating the
hand release (42) to engage the pawl in the notches of the
ratchet wheel, and thus stop rotation of the sheave or reel
(4), does not mean that the pawl (39) is "arranged as a
mechanical toggle switch" as required in appellant's claim 1
on appeal and that it will operate in the particular manner
set forth in appellant’s claim 1 and as we have determined
above is required of a pawl that is "arranged as a mechanical
toggle switch." In the situation where the strength of the
rocking motion imparted to the pawl (39) of Fertier is
sufficient to cause the rocker to flip the pawl to the lock
condition (col. 3, lines 6-14), we note that the pawl is not
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007