Appeal No. 96-1870
Application 08/088,570
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
appreciated the disclosure in the appellant’s specification
relating to the extendible-retractable device embodiments
illustrated in Figures 10 through 12 (see specification pages 9,
25 and 26) as being directed to a device having a pair
of toothed wheels connected to each other through a flexible
connector as recited in claim 5. Although the appellant’s
disclosure does not set forth specifically how the flexible
connector is connected to the toothed wheels so as to allow them
to engage their associated racks, such connection 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 the appellant’s
application, would not have been able to make and use an
extendible-retractable device having the toothed wheel/flexible
connector construction required by claim 5 without undue
experimentation.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, rejection of claim 5.
We shall sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 3 as being anticipated by Young, Luhrs or
Vranish.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007