Appeal No. 2002-1336
Application No. 09/259,062
limit stop, at best, only the limit stop itself, and not the
asserted “support arm” as a whole, extends substantially toward
the actuator assembly. As we see it, either the support arm of
the reference corresponds to the limit stop 378, in which case
the support arm extends substantially toward the actuator
assembly but does not support the magnetically permeable member
as called for elsewhere in the claim, or the support arm of the
reference corresponds to the end of the latch distal of the limit
stop 378 inclusive of the limit stop, in which case the support
arm supports the magnetically permeable member but does not, as a
whole, extend substantially toward the actuator assembly. The
examiner’s view to the contrary is improper.
In addition, there remains the limitation of claim 1 that
the “magnetically permeable member [is] supported by the support
arm . . . , wherein the support arm and the magnetically
permeable member extend . . . so that the contact feature passes
under the support arm as the latch pawl moves between the
respective latched and unlatched positions.” In asserting that
this limitation is met by Reinhart, the examiner contends
(answer, pages 5 and 6) that there is no claim limitation
requiring mechanical clearance between the magnetically permeable
member and the contact feature of the actuator assembly.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007