Appeal No. 99-1823
Application 08/964,278
(CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Cordova, 10 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51
(BPAI 1988). See also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169
USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). The dispositive issue with respect
to independent claims 8 and 15 is whether Humberson’s capstan
structure reasonably appears to be capable of functioning in
the manner called for in those claims. As noted above, the
independent claims on appeal require that the ramped guide
member and the support member have surfaces that include
coupling structure for adjustably fixing the position of the
ramped guide member relative to said support member “as a
result of contact between said surfaces of said ramped guide
member and said support member.” While we appreciate the
points made by the examiner in rejecting the claims, including
those made in the above quoted portion of the answer, the
examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent to us, how
Humberson’s capstan can function to enable adjustable fixing
of the position of the ramped guide structure 15 relative to
the support member 5 as a result of contact between the
interface surfaces thereof, as now claimed. In Humberson,
regardless of what elements are designated the coupling
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007