Appeal No. 2004-0030 Page 3
Application No. 09/337,492
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of enablement relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellant's arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse,
essentially for the reasons set forth by appellant.
The examiner's position (answer, page 4) is that:
In regard to claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 17 and 18,
the first distance is not seen to be adjustable
since there is no mechanism for maintaining an
adjusted distance. Contrary to claims 6, 10 and
17, the distance between the main board and the
latch is not affected by movement of the members
in reference to the frame. Contrary to claims 7,
11 and 18, the first distance cannot be adjusted.
Contrary to claims 24, 26 and 29, the present device
does not comprise structure to maintain a gap H”
between the frame and the latch member.
Appellant asserts (brief, pages 15-17) that flexible supports 15
maintain the desired spacing between components of the device.
It is argued that H" is adjustable because flexible supports 15
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007