Appeal No. 95-2405
Application No. 07/969,663
for switching, this is obviated by Applicant’s claimed
invention.
The Roeser reference…contains no teaching of moveable
[sic] contact means mounted on the rocker means…
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. First, it is unclear
exactly what language in claim 8 is being relied on for the
argument that the shorting contacts on the rocker “are away from
the pivot point.” Second, while appellant argues that Stevenson
relies on the pivoting contact to provide “his electrical common
function for switching,” we fail to find any language in claim 8
which precludes any such “electrical common function for
switching.”
With regard to the Roeser reference, it is unpersuasive for
appellant to argue that the reference “contains no teaching of
moveable [sic] contact means mounted on the rocker means” because
the examiner relies on Stevenson, not Roeser, for this teaching.
Roeser is relied on by the examiner merely to show that it was
known to use the pivotal motion of a rocker with reference to a
collar to operate switches while simultaneously operating other
switches with a downward or pushing motion of the collar.
With regard to claim 4, appellant does not argue that the
application of Kokubu for the teaching of a light pipe was
improper; only that Kokubu does not provide for the alleged
deficiencies of Stevenson and Roeser. However, since appellant’s
previous argument with regard to the primary references was
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007