Appeal No. 97-2907
Application 08/314,146
that is “open”, while the Handels device includes an opening
14 where trigger 12 enters the housing effecting a partially
enclosed housing. 7
From our perspective, one having ordinary skill in the
art would not have been motivated to modify the gun of Chang,
as proposed by the examiner, since complete enclosure of the
housing would have defeated the express intent of the patentee
of an open housing to achieve the stated objective of having
the internal mechanism highly visible and readily accessible
for inspection and oiling. For this reason, the rejection of
claim 1 on the evidence of obviousness before us is not well
founded and must be reversed. It follows that the rejection
of dependent claims 3 through 8 is likewise reversed.
7 Appellant is claiming structure that is “completely enclosed” by a housing.
However, notwithstanding appellant’s statement in the specification (page 12) that the
“only protrusion” are the very small rod release button 28 and the proximal end of the
rod 16, akin to the teaching of Handels, we find that appellant’s trigger 16 likewise
protrudes from the housing. Thus, we understand the recitation of “completely enclosed”
in claim 1, consistent with appellant’s disclosure, to clearly permit the inclusion of
protrusions through the housing. Like appellant (reply brief, page 2),we appreciate
that, in accordance with the “completely enclosed” requirement of the claims, the
trigger interface with the housing as depicted in Fig. 5 would fill an opening in the
housing, akin to the release button, for consistency with the aforementioned requirement
of the claims.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007