Appeal No. 2000-1011
Application 09/042,761
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We have further determined
that the applied prior art does not anticipate or render
obvious the claimed subject matter on appeal. Therefore the
rejections of all claims on appeal are reversed. Our reasons
follow.
Turning first to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, the examiner first questions exactly when
the restraining member is biased toward the engaged position.
We agree with the appellants that this portion of claims 1, 15
and 20 is directed to broadly claiming the restraining member
biasing and does not render any of the independent claims
indefinite within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Next, the
examiner questions the means by which the restraining member
is biased. Here again, we agree with the appellants that it
is not necessary that the biasing mechanism be recited. The
examiner next questions what portion of the vehicle is
structurally engaged by the claimed subject matter. Here
again, we agree with the appellants that the claim is merely
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007