Appeal No. 1999-2065
Application 08/651,502
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 45 as being anticipated by Fischer, the examiner asserts
that the trigger (rack 14 of Fischer) “is fully capable of
being disengaged with angled camming portion (the teeth of
wheel 22) when the anvil and magazine are moved to the open
position merely by the user moving the trigger to the far
right side of the arm (17) while moving the anvil and magazine
to the opened position” (answer page 7). Appellants urge that
Fischer does not disclose or suggest a
stapling apparatus having, inter alia, (1)
an actuator operatively associated with a
pusher and having an angled camming portion
formed thereon, and a trigger having
proximal and distal portions, wherein the
distal portion
is engageable with the angled camming
portion in the closed position of the anvil
and magazine to facilitate actuation of the
pusher, and (2) a distal portion of a
trigger disengageable with the angled
camming portion in response to movement of
the anvil and magazine to the open position
to prevent actuation of the pusher [brief,
page 18].
In the reply brief (page 4), appellants urge that “Fischer’s
trigger is not disengaged from the actuator in response to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007