Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,015
Claims 11-15
The disputed portion of claim 11 recites "providing a
resiliently biased follower to ride in said track and to control
the position of said antenna as it moves between retracted and
extended positions" (emphasis added).
Appellant's specification describes that the catch end 36a
moves in a "groove" 44 in the edge of the traveler (spec. at 6)
whereas the traveler 20 is described to have a U-shaped housing
30 with a cantilevered, L-shaped resilient arm 30 on each side of
a "track" 28 (spec. at 5). We interpret the claimed "track" to
actually refer to the described "groove." Compare claim 1 where
the claimed "track" refers to the disclosed "track." The
limitation that the "resiliently based follower" acts to "control
the position of said antenna as it moves between retracted and
extended position" seems misdescriptive inasmuch as the follower
("catch") only retains the antenna in the retracted position and
does not appear to "control the position of said antenna as it
moves between retracted and extended position" (emphasis added).
The cam follower 104 in Johnson corresponds to the
"follower" in claim 11, but it is not disclosed as being
"resiliently biased." We agree with the examiner that one
skilled in the art would have been motivated to make the cam
follower 104 in Johnson "resiliently biased" given the teaching
in Ishida that cam followers in locking mechanisms can be spring
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007