Appeal No. 2004-1599
Application No. 09/784,466
The appellant takes the position that Arnold does not teach
the limitations of claims 2 through 4, 15 and 17 through 20. See
the Brief, pages 7-9. In support of this position, the appellant
repeats the same argument indicated above. Id. Thus, we are not
persuaded by this argument either for the same reasons indicated
supra.
The appellant argues that Arnold fails to anticipate the
subject matter recited in claims 5, 6 and 7.2 See the Brief, pages
7-8 and the Reply Brief, pages 2-3. We do not agree. As correctly
found by the examiner at pages 5 and 6 of the Answer, Arnold
discloses employing a crutch spring 70 which is encompassed by the
claimed friction detent mechanism.3
However, claim 16 is on different footing. Although the
appellant asserts that Arnold does not teach that the first and
1(...continued)
drive the movable member).
2 Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003), we focus on claim
5 since the appellant states that “[c]laims 5, 6 and 7 stand or
fall together.” See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1384, 63
USPQ2d 1462, 1465-66 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
3 The claims in a pending application are given the broadest
reasonable interpretation (see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) and limitations from the
application specification are not read into the claims (see
Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027
(Fed. Cir. 1988)).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007