Appeal No. 2000-0078
Application No. 08/837,242
48. In view of this disclosure, in particular, we consider
that the specification adequately shows what is meant by the
claimed “drive means,” since it shows that the “corresponding
structure
. . . described in the specification” (§ 112, sixth paragraph)
which performs the recited function of the “drive means” is
the control 120, motor 64, and reduction gear set 68
(including rack 96).
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained.
Rejection (2)
The Miilu patent, on which this rejection is based,
discloses apparatus for latching an automobile convertible top
110 to the windshield header 112. A motor 214 mounted on a
rail 202 of the top causes a keeper 234 to pivot, thereby
engaging the
header at 236 when the top is closed against the header (Fig.
2). The examiner identifies Miilu’s element 236 as
corresponding to the appellant’s recited cam member.
Appellant’s arguments are set forth on pages 9 to 13 of
the brief and pages 3 and 4 of the reply brief. In essence,
appellant argues that the claims are not anticipated because
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007