Appeal No. 2004-1315
Application No. 09/815,191
answer, wherein the examiner correctly states that appellant
argues certain features which are not claimed.
We additionally point out that, as admitted by appellant on
page 16 of the brief, Klubitschko teaches the use of a coil
bending spring that influences pedal 14 (pedal 14 is depicted in
Figures 1 and 2). See column 2, lines 46-55 of Klubitschko. As
discussed above, appellant’s claim 7 does not recite a
particular design of the spring. Claim 7 recites that the
spring member is located about one leg-section and that it
communicates with the lever arm member. Although appellant
asserts that the design of the torsion spring of Klubitschko is
unknown, column 2, lines 46-55 of Klubitschko teaches that the
use of “a coiled bending spring” influences pedal 14. Appellant
does not present specific arguments that such a teaching does
not suggest “a pre-stressed torsion spring member [190] located
about one leg-section”. Although the examiner discusses Renaud-
Goud (discussed above) regarding the teaching of a torsion
spring, it is noteworthy to point out appellant’s admission of
the use of a coil bending spring found in Klubitschko.
With regard to the other arguments presented by appellant,
we refer to the examiner’s rebuttal as set forth on pages 6-8 of
the answer. Here, the examiner correctly points out that the
intended use is not a distinguishing characteristic of the claim
rather the structural aspects are of import. We note that it
has been held that a process of use limitation, as recited in
the preamble of the claim, has no significance in a product
claim. Cf. In re Wiggins, 397 F.2d 356, 359 n.4, 158 USPQ 199,
201-202 n. 4 (CCPA 1968).
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007