Appeal No. 1999-2065
Application 08/651,502
the jaw members from the closed to the open position” (claim
1, lines 14-16, emphasis added). The examiner states that “it
remains unclear what structure is being claimed that provides
for the trigger to be moved in response to movement of the jaw
members from the closed to the open position” (answer, pages 5
and 6). We consider that this functional recitation requires
a structural interrelationship between the trigger, the staple
pusher and the jaw members such that the device is capable of
performing this function. Clearly, Takaro lacks any such
structural interrelationship. Thus, the movement of the latch
(13) of Takaro to the inoperative position by a user (i.e. as
depicted in Figure 2 of Takaro), is not “in response to” move-
ment of the jaw members from the closed to the open position.
Instead, the latch (13) of Takaro is clearly moved to the
inoperative position by direct action of the user. This
movement by the user is independent of the movement of
the jaw members. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 46
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007