Appeal No. 1999-2065
Application 08/651,502
served by the recited element, ingredient or step. Clearly,
Fischer does not contain structure such that the rack or
trigger (14) is disengaged with the angled camming portion “in
response to” movement of the jaws to the open position, as
recited in
claim 45 on appeal. Instead, the movement of the rack (14) of
Fischer is clearly independent of the movement of the jaws
and, as urged by appellants, Fischer’s rack or trigger (14) is
not disengaged from the actuator in response to movement of
the jaws to the open position, but is operatively associated
with the actuator therein and can apparently eject staples in
both the open and closed positions of the jaws.
Contrary to the examiner’s assertions in the answer
(pages 6-8), we do not see that the examiner has given the
language of claim 45 on appeal its broadest “reasonable”
interpretation or that the examiner has read the limitations
of claim 45 on the structure found in Fischer in a reasonable
manner. During patent examination, the pending claims must be
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007