Appeal No. 96-2612
Application 08/137,530
Fig. 1. Appellant’s contention that Iten’s bar is not a
locking shoulder is not well taken, since there is nothing in
these claims to preclude the locking shoulder from being the
corner of a bar.
Argument [III] relates to claim 9, the only claim
rejected under § 102(b) which contains any recitation concern-
ing the exertion of force. We find that this claim is read-
able on Iten. While Iten’s center prongs 20 are released from
the locking shoulders on bar 40 by squeezing the handle at A
(Fig. 2), it would then be necessary to remove the head
(cartridge) from the handle by exerting a force on the car-
tridge in a direction to move it in a direction away from the
handle (as well as a corresponding force on the handle to move
it away from the cartridge). That is all that claim 9 re-
quires.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 to 9, 12, 14, 16, 18
and 19 will accordingly be sustained.
Rejection (2)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007