Appeal No. 1998-3353
Application 08/692,711
member is “positioned and dimensioned for direct
engagement with said pawls . . . in response to movement
of said selector member between its first and second
positions.”
A copy of the appealed claims is appended to
appellants’ brief.
The following references are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness in support of her
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Froeschl et al. (Froeschl) 2,201,827 May 21, 1940
Gantz 2,627,330 Feb. 3, 1953
Herman et al. (Herman) 4,777,852 Oct.18, 1988
Claims 21 through 25 and 28 through 33 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Herman in view of Froeschl, and claims 21, 23, 24 and 28
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Herman in view of Gantz. In both of
these rejections, the examiner concedes that the Herman
patent lacks a disclosure of a pawl-engaging actuator
projection structure (which is referred to on pages 3 and
4 of the answer in a more limited sense as a “pin”) on
Herman’s selector member 90.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007