Appeal No. 1997-3340 Page 4
Application No. 08/323,500
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. Based on our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The inadequate written description rejection
In rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 14-17, 20, 21, 23-28, 32 and 34-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, the examiner's position (final rejection, page 4) is that the limitations in
independent claims 1, 14 and 23 with regard to relative rotation or pivoting of the plate
engaging means and plate clamping means in opposite angular directions are not supported by
appellant’s original disclosure. For the reasons cited on pages 13 and 14 of appellant's brief,
we cannot sustain this rejection.
Specifically, as best seen in Figures 6 and 9 and described in appellant's specification on
page 21, in lines 5-14, to engage the binding plate (70) fixed to a rider's shoe with the clipless
pedal, the front of the binding plate is first hooked into the engaging hook (43) of the plate
engaging member (42). The rider then pushes down on the rear of the shoe, whereupon the
pressure of the angled surface (72) at the rear of the plate against the clamping hook (39) of the
plate clamping member (38) causes the engaging member (42) and the clamping member (38) to
rotate about the axis of the pedal shaft (12) to increase the distance between the clamping hook
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007