Appeal No. 1999-2850
Application No. 09/042,861
above a predetermined level of force to allow the drive shaft to rotate freely, preventing
damage to the drive motor, but does not understand how a deformable tab would allow the
motor and drive shaft to rotate freely, preventing such damage. The examiner summarizes
the rejection, at page 5 of the answer:
...it is not clear from the specification how the tab deforms without
breaking to allow the drive motor and drive shaft to rotate continuously
when the input force resisted by the transmission mechanism reaches the
predetermined level. [emphasis original]
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, because, in our view, the examiner has not set forth a reasonable basis for
attacking the sufficiency of the instant disclosure. After disclosing breakable tabs which
break out of the way to allow free movement of the motor and drive shaft, page 18 of the
specification indicates that there are alternative embodiments including “tabs which rather
than being frangible, are merely deformable so as to limit the resistance....such that the
tabs deform without breaking in response to a resistance, to enable the motor drive shaft
to turn in the recess.”
Whether the tabs are broken or bent out of the way, i.e., deformed, it is clear that
such action is taken in order to enable the motor drive shaft to turn freely. It is clear from
the disclosure that in the “deformable” embodiment, the tabs are merely pushed
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007