Appeal No. 2002-1590 Page 4
Application No. 09/511,516
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Looking first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellants regard as their invention, we must agree with
the examiner that the recitation in independent claim 1 of the
control mechanism being released “independently of a force
applied to said collapsible rod...” (emphasis added) is
inaccurate, and also vague and indefinite. In any predetermined
vehicle deceleration, the push rod (22) of appellants’ invention
will experience forces acting on the push rod due to deceleration
of the vehicle and, in the circumstance of a frontal collision,
there exists the possibility of axial compression forces acting
on the push rod which would tend to move the push rod and pedal
towards the driver’s compartment prior to release of the ball
bearings (58). It is also likely that in any deceleration
situation the push rod (22) would be subjected to an axial force
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007