Appeal No. 1999-2781
Application No. 08/656,299
Fertier in view of Willey, we share appellant’s view (brief,
pages 10-12) that given the entirely different operational
characteristics and requirements of the "impact" type pawl
mechanisms in Kell
(Fig. 11), Fritsche and Fertier vis-a-vis the "shifting mass"
type actuation mechanism of Willey, there would appear to be
no reason or suggestion for one of ordinary skill in the art
to attempt to combine the toggle switch type pawl (30) of
Willey with the direct actuation devices of Kell, Fritsche, or
Fertier. In this regard, we are of the opinion that the
examiner has utilized impermissible hindsight derived from
appellant's own disclosure and claims in attempting to combine
the disparate teachings of Willey with those of Kell,
Fritsche, or Fertier.
In addition, with particular regard to independent claims
25 and 30 on appeal, we consider that the examiner has failed
to properly interpret the "toggled biasing means" of these
claims in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
As was made clear in In re Donaldson Co. Inc., 16 F.3d 1189,
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007