Appeal No. 2005-0562
Application 09/824,276
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination which
follows.
In rejecting claims 11, 13 through 16 and 19 through 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of the collective teachings
of Reynolds and Jones, it is the examiner’s position (final
rejection, pages 2-3) that Reynolds discloses
a manual transmission assembly comprising: a shift lever
(inherent) to operatively rotate an interlock; a reverse
biasing assembly including said interlock rotatable between
a first position and a second position, a detent mechanism
which substantially contacts said interlock, and a detent
switch coacting with said detent mechanism to indicate when
said interlock is in said first position (figs. 6-8); a
shift rail 100 rotatable and axially moveable by said shift
lever, said shift rail rotating with said interlock; a
plurality of shift forks operatively engageable by said
shift rail; a plurality of gears operatively connected to
is missing. According to the Image File Wrapper (IFW), claim 14
depends from claim 13. As a further issue, we note that we find
no clear antecedent basis for the recitation in several of the
claims on appeal of “said elevated portion of said exterior
surface of said detent mechanism.” While independent claim 11
sets forth a detent mechanism including “a housing having an
external surface with a recessed portion,” we find no indication
in this or any other claim concerning the remainder of the
exterior surface of the detent mechanism. Appellants and the
examiner should address and clarify this issue during any further
prosecution of the application.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007