Appeal No. 96-0814
Application 08/066,331
lever when the pin 23 is moved into the hole 30 in the crank arm.
Rather, the examiner seems to be of the view that the disclosure
is not enabling because one of ordinary skill in the art would
not know how to make a frictional locking mechanism that utilizes
the resulting movement of the lever to release the locking
mechanism. Although appellants’ disclosure does not specifically
set forth the construction of the frictional locking mechanism,
nor how it would cooperate with the dogleg-lever 31 to allow for
release of the locking mechanism when the pin engages the upper
end of the lever, such details would appear to be a rather simple
and straightforward matter. The examiner has not advanced any
reason, nor is any apparent, why a person of ordinary skill in
the art, as of the date of appellants’ application, would not
have been able to practice the method of independent claim 1, and
claims 4-6 and 9 which depend therefrom without undue
experimentation, and in particular the steps of releasing and re-
engaging the frictional locking mechanism as called for in claim
1, and the step of unlocking the fixture as a function of the
axial position of the lug, as called for in dependent claim 9.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, rejection of claims 1, 4-6 and 9.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007