Appeal No. 2000-1320
Application No. 08/796,737
we find it immaterial whether the appellants can understand what the examiner
intended as the corresponding elements even if the examiner did not specifically recite
the elements. It is material that the examiner was clearly incorrect in the application of
the prior art. Here, we find that the examiner was clearly in error in applying the prior
art of Yumura to the invention recited in independent claim 5.
Appellants argue that the examiner did not provide any explanation of the
rejected claims and how the claims are construed to read on the Yumura reference.
(See brief at page 8.) Appellants argue that the structure, shape and design of the
assembly disclosed by Yumura are substantially different from that of appellants'
claims. (See brief at page 8.) We agree with appellants. Appellants argue that
independent claims 5 and 7 recite a "straddle-mounted spring displacement portion"
which is not taught by Yumura. Additionally, appellants argue that Yumura is directed
to a cantilever type spring rather than a straddle-mounted spring. (See brief at pages 9-
10.) Appellants identify the structural differences between the two types in the
specification at pages 2-4 and Figures 2-4 and 5-6 in the discussion of the conventional
two types. We agree with appellants that Yumura is not directed to a straddle-mounted
spring as shown and described in the conventional prior art in Figure 5. Therefore, we
find that Yumura does not teach "a straddle-mounted spring displacement portion which
is formed on said holder," and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 5
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007