Appeal 2007-0796
Application 10/236,088
than aperture 28 in housing 25 of cap 20 attached to the free end of ribbon
30, ring 32 thereby preventing both ring 32 and the portion of ribbon 30
connected to ring 32, from being retracted into ribbon housing 25
(Specification ¶ 34; Fig. 7).
The additional issue presented with respect to claim 6 is whether the
tab or loop 9 of Klophaus is larger than an aperture in casing 4 through
which tape 8 passes when extended, thereby preventing both the tab or loop
9 and the portion of tape 8 connected to tab or loop 9 from being retracted
through such aperture and into the casing 4, as asserted by the Examiner
(Ans. 4 and 13). The Examiner contends that, in order for tab or loop 9 to
"assist in the extension of the tape" as taught by Klophaus, it must be outside
of the housing (casing 4) for a user to pull the ribbon, and concludes that the
tab or loop 9 is larger than the aperture to prevent the tab or loop 9 from
extending entirely into the housing (Ans. 13). Appellant, on the other hand,
points out that the drawings do not even show an aperture, are not indicated
as being to scale, and thus cannot be relied upon for relative dimensions of
the aperture and tab or loop 9 (Reply Br. 5). Further, Appellant contends
that the casing 4 may include a larger aperture which allows tab or loop 9 to
merely rest within the housing and within the view of the user, so that the
user may reach into the aperture and pull out the loop or tab 9. Id.
We find the Examiner's position much more reasonable and
Appellant's position, quite frankly, untenable. An arrangement wherein the
aperture in casing 4 and spring 6 permit the tab or loop to be retracted into
the casing would make the device incapable of use in the manner disclosed
by Klophaus, as the tab or loop 9 used to assist in the extension of the tape 8
could not be accessed by the user without dismantling the device.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013