Appeal No. 2004-1057
Application No. 09/844,385
We now consider the arguments presented for independent
claim 9. Appellants argue that the movement of Gorgi's follower
acts in a like manner to that which occurs with a traditional
ballpoint pen. Thus, there is a net rotation of the actuator
member relative to the track bearing pen barrel. Consequently,
Gorgi's follower causes a net rotation of Gorgi's actuator 44 in
one cycle – from the first locating position to the second
locating position and back again. See pages 4 and 5 of the
brief.
The Examiner answers "[a] variety of ball point pens exist,
some of which have actuators that rotate incrementally in a
single direction each time the pusher is pushed and others that
have an actuator that does not rotate at all . . . . Therefore,
the actuator 46 disclosed by Gorgi could function in either of
the two manners suggested above, depending upon the significance
of the word 'traditional' to Gorgi et al." See answer, pages 4
and 5.
We find that Gorgi does not expressly teach the functional
limitation "movement of said track follower from said first
locating position to said second locating position and back to
said first locating position causes no net rotation of said
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007