Appeal No. 2005-0208 Page 5
Application No. 10/137,510
Moon teaches (column 2, lines 35-38) that torsion bar 11 (see Figure 2) is
divided at its middle point into two portions having different diameters respectively. That
is, front portion 15 of the torsion bar has a larger diameter, and rear portion 17 has a
smaller diameter.
It is our determination that the claimed limitation "wherein said torsion bar
includes a generally uniform cross-section along said lengths" (i.e., along both the first
length between the first and second end portions of the torsion bar and the second
length between the first end portion of the torsion bar and the contact arm) is not
readable on Moon's torsion bar 11 which is divided at its middle point into a front portion
15 having a diameter larger than the rear portion 17. In our view, this limitation clearly
requires that the cross-section along the first length between the first and second end
portions of the torsion bar be generally uniform. Since Moon's torsion bar 11 has two
different cross-sections along its length between the first and second end portions of the
torsion bar, Moon's torsion bar 11 does not have a generally uniform cross-section
between the first and second end portions of the torsion bar.
For the reasons set forth above all the limitations of claim 4 are not met by Moon.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007