Appeal No. 2002-1589
Application 09/280,180
As for the examiner’s position concerning the “bridging
wall” set forth in claims 3 and 4 on appeal, we agree with
appellant’s argument on page 5 of the brief that no such bridging
wall exists in Kund.
Accordingly, since all the limitations of appellant’s claims
1 through 6, 12, 18, 20 and 21 are not found in Kund, either
expressly or under principles of inherency, it follows that the
examiner's rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
relying on Kund will not be sustained.
Turning next to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6
through 17 and 23 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kund (Figs. 6-9) in view of Chou, we note that
the embodiment seen in Figures 6-9 of Kund discloses a gear
indicating apparatus for coupling to a control cable (e.g., slave
cable 31b) having a cable end protuberance or bead (32b) attached
thereto comprising, a movable gear indicator (e.g., 55b) and a
member (37b) for moving the movable gear indicator having a cable
terminating structure associated therewith and a first detenting
structure (38b) for receiving the cable end protuberance. While
the examiner has rejected claims 1, 6 through 17 and 23 through
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007