Appeal No. 2002-1876
Application 09/358,158
Appellants argue that even if, hypothetically, one skilled
in the art were aware of the problem recognized by appellants and
looked to the prior art for solutions to that problem, nothing in
Figs. 9-11 of Atsumi '552 would lead to the solution defined by
the claims on appeal (Br6-7). It is argued that the long locking
arm with long locking step and short locking arm with short
locking step of Atsumi '552 would result in significant inertia
as the retainer is moved towards the partial locking position
which increases the likelihood of an inadvertent premature
insertion of the retainer beyond the partial locking position
(Br7; RBr2-3).
The rejection is based on making the partial locking arm of
Atsumi '565 thinner than the full locking arm in view of
Atsumi '552, not incorporating the longer locking step of
Atsumi '552 (although claim 1 does not define specific locking
step structure and does not preclude using the long locking step
of Atsumi '552). Furthermore, claim 1 only requires a structure
where the partial locking arm is thinner in width and/or
thickness than the full locking arm and Fig. 9 of Atsumi '552
discloses this structure. Assuming, arguendo, that the retainer
in Atsumi '552 would have a greater tendency to go past the
partial locking position, appellants have not pointed out what
limitations in claim 1 are not met.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007