Appeal No. 99-1752
Application 08/632,955
the descriptive portion of the Tamaki specification and the
showing in Figs. 1 and 2 simply do not fairly teach a return
coil spring having one end engaged with the control lever and
the other end engaged with a support bracket at locations such
that the force acting on said bracket by said return spring
extends along a line which is parallel to the direction of the
force applied to said control lever by said pull member but in
opposite direction, an express requirement of claim 1. It
would be inappropriate conjecture to conclude that the
draftsman’s depiction of the invention in the drawing of
Tamaki teaches the force relationship now claimed. Lacking a
sound evidentiary basis, the rejection of
the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) cannot be
sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007