Appeal No. 2002-1860
Application No. 09/204,275
Fujiura, which the Examiner likens to the claimed opening/closing
member, also have a tension part providing a predetermined degree
of tension to the pin member 26, which the Examiner contends
corresponds to the claimed sensor lever. In addition, we find no
reasonable interpretation of the language of claim 6 which would
support the Examiner’s conclusion that the support members 27 of
Fujiura, circumferentially spaced around the sensor hole 23 and
which are removed by an external tool 28 to open the sensor hole,
function to position the opening closing member (pin 26 which is
removed by the tool 28) to an open position when the cover is
opened.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not present in the disclosure of Fujiura, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent
claim 6, nor of claims 7 and 8 dependent thereon.
We also find ourselves in agreement with Appellants’
arguments with respect to independent claims 33, 48, and 51 and,
accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection based on Fujiura of claims 33, 48, and 51, nor of claims
34-40, 42-44, 49, 50, 52, and 53 dependent thereon. Our review of
the disclosure of Fujiura finds a fundamental difference between
what is described in Fujiura and what is set forth in appealed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007