Appeal No. 2002-1336
Application No. 09/259,062
However, we consider that the claim requirement that the
magnetically permeable member is “supported by the support arm,”
combined with the claim requirement that “the contact feature
passes under the support arm as the latch pawl moves between the
respective latched and unlatched positions,” requires the very
“mechanical clearance” between the magnetically permeable member
and the contact feature of the actuator assembly that the
examiner maintains the claim lacks. In our view, the examiner’s
position to the contrary amounts to an unreasonable and distorted
interpretation of the claim language.3
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the
rejection of base claims 1 and 10, as well as dependent claims 2,
3, 8, 11, 12 and 17, as being anticipated by Reinhart.
3We also note the examiner’s comment on page 6 of the answer
that, in any event, “it would have been within the level of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
apply the mechanical clearance of Reinhart ‘527 member 306 to
Reinhart ‘527 member 312.” This comment is of no immediate
relevance with respect to the anticipation rejection before us in
that any “application” of Reinhart’s alleged teaching concerning
the location of member 306 of the forward arm 308 to the member
312 of the trailing arm 310 would involve a modification of
Reinhart’s structure.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007