Appeal No. 2000-1471
Application No. 08/935,655
in question, even if read in a vacuum, indicates that the
element urged into a holding position by spring 31 is latch
28, not cam lever 27. The structural relationships between
spring 31, latch 28 and cam lever 27 shown in Figures 2
through 6 leave no doubt that such is the case, and that
spring 31 does not act on the cams 36 associated with lever 27
in the manner required by claims 5 and 6. Since the Poehlmann
device does not include any other spring meeting these claim
limitations, the examiner’s determination that Poehlmann
discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency, each
and every element of the invention recited in claims 5 and 6
is unsound.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 5 and 6 as being anticipated by
Poehlmann.
SUMMARY
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007