Appeal No. 2000-1011
Application 09/042,761
considering the Hageman invention. In fact, the conventional
clutch as described in the prior art works with a rotational
motor which Hageman does not disclose. Likewise, it is
unclear to us how a conventional lever arrangement could be
combined with the structure shown in Hageman. The examiner
offers no explanation. Likewise, with respect to claims 8,
10, 14 and 17 through 19 as well as claims 12 and 13, the
examiner has no explanation of how his catalog of components
could be incorporated in the Hageman device. Furthermore, the
examiner includes not a single word with respect to the
suggestion or motivation for making these changes.
With respect to claims 15, 20 and 21 as rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Hahn, we note that the
biasing means disclosed in Hahn is identified by the examiner
as means 92. In actuality this is a screw motor, which as far
as we know provides no biasing effect at all. Hahn does not
disclose a biasing means operative between the carriage and
the restraining member.
With respect to claims 1 through 14 and 17 through 19 the
examiner provides two sentences to explain the scope and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007