Appeal No. 2004-1602
Application No. 09/954,766
limitations that are not recited in the claims, namely the claims
do not recite that the snubber arm is constructed of two separate
pieces. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688
(Fed. Cir. 1996). Furthermore, as clearly shown by Figure 9 of
Rodriguez, the snubber arm has two sections at an obtuse angle with
respect to each other (see the bellcrank arm 270 with an unnumbered
pivotal point establishing two sections). Finally, we note that
claim 1 on appeal does not recite whether the snubber contacts the
coil on the side or the top, and thus appellants are again arguing
limitations not found in the claim.
Appellants also argue that Rodriguez does not disclose the
claimed element of “Effecting a Pivoting Movement of Said Snubber
Arm Relative to said Base Plate” but teaches bellcrank arm 270 is
pivotally mounted at a point intermediate its ends on a flange 276
(Brief, pages 5-6). Appellants further argue that Rodriguez does
not disclose “A Stand-Alone Means For Effecting a Pivoting
Movement” as required by claim 1 on appeal (Brief, page 6).
These arguments are not persuasive. As correctly noted by the
examiner (Answer, page 7), the exact location of the pivot point is
not recited in claim 1 on appeal. Accordingly, this argument is to
no avail since it concerns limitations not found in claim 1 on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007