Appeal No. 96-0528
Application No. 08/151,463
in the sense of fastening the elevator chassis to the main
chassis wherein the elevator chassis cannot move until
unfastened (as by movement of the pull-out lever 44).
Moreover, as the “elevation drive mechanism” and the
“locking mechanism” are claimed as two separate elements, we
view these elements as being separate and distinct, especially
in view of appellant’s written intent that they be construed
as separate and distinct elements [bottom of page 10 to the
top of page 11 of the brief]. In Miyoshi, if one regards the
screws 121 and its attendant elements, including the lift
drive motor 125, as the “locking mechanism,” then the “locking
mechanism” is not separate and distinct from the “elevation
drive mechanism,” 125 in Miyoshi.
Further, instant claim 1 does not merely call for the
elevator chassis to be locked to the main chassis, but,
rather, that they be locked together “in a ganged relation
with the disc pull-out operation of the disc pull-out
mechanism...” In Miyoshi, any such disc pull-out mechanism
would be the tray hook 112 but this hook is clearly not “in a
ganged relation” with the elevator and main chassis. At page
7 of the brief, appellant contends that a “ganged relation,”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007