Appeal No. 2000-1011
Application 09/042,761
second paragraph. 1
Turning to the rejection of claims 15, 20 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Hageman, we note that both
the general dictionary definition of the term “bias”, and
appellants’ specification makes clear that the term “bias” as
used in appellants’ claims denotes a force tending to move a
mechanism in a certain direction at all times. We note that
hydraulic cylinder 15 of Hageman only moves the restraining
member toward the engaged position when the carriage is in the
highest position. When the carriage is lowered, the cylinder
15 no longer “biases” the restraining member toward the
engaged position. Thus, Hageman does not disclose all the
features of claims 15, 20 and 21.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
14 and 17 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hageman, we disagree with the examiner that a
conventional disconnect clutch would have been obvious when
1 We note several instances in the specification wherein
the friction clutch is stated as not shown. However, the
clutch is claimed in claim 1. Accordingly, an objection to
the specification and drawing under 37 CFR 1.83(a) would be
proper in this circumstance.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007