Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,015
communication card (Figs. 9 and 10; col. 11, line 66, to col. 12,
line 16). The cam follower 104 acts against the stop 118 to hold
retractable connector 24 in the retracted position (col. 12,
lines 37-41). The end of the cam follower 104 is considered to
be a "catch" as recited in claim 1. However, the cam follower in
Johnson is not described to be "spring biased," as recited in
claim 1, or "resiliently biased," as recited in claim 11, or a
"leaf spring," as recited in claim 16.
Ishida discloses a locking mechanism for a PC card having a
cantilevered spring 28, which may be a leaf spring (col. 3,
lines 63-67), which rides in a cam channel 58 around a cam
island 57 (col. 2, line 59, to col. 3, line 4). The cam locking
mechanism of Ishida is almost identical to Johnson except it
discloses that the cam follower is a spring.
Claims 1, 2, and 10
The disputed portion of claim 1 recites "a catch that
retains the antenna in the retracted position in said track, said
catch being spring biased" (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that Ishida relates to a locking a button
in place, not locking an antenna or even the PC card, and,
therefore, the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed (Br5-6).
The examiner responds: (1) the catch 102 of Johnson is
spring biased, referring to column 12, lines 37-41 (EA4); (2) the
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007