Appeal No. 97-4208
Application 08/682,393
to urge the pawl in one direction or the other (col. 3, lines 54
to 59). Thus, contrary to the examiner’s statement, the ball
detent of Gummow, whether located on the pawl or on the wall of
the housing, could not be used in exactly the same manner for
exactly the same purpose as Main’s spring loaded pin 46, and we
perceive no basis for concluding that one of ordinary skill would
have been motivated to substitute the former for the latter.
The rejection of claim 4 will not be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is affirmed as to claims
21 and 41, and reversed as to claims 1 to 5, 9 to 13, 15, 17 to
20, 22 to 25, 27 to 40 and 42 to 44. His decision to reject the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims 1,
2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 20 to 23, and is reversed as to claims 3,
4, 11, 24, 25 and 27 to 43.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007