Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,015
biased. Appellant's argument that the spring element 28 in
Ishida does not control the position of the antenna as it rides
in the track, but locks the position of the button is not
persuasive for the reason stated in connection with claim 1. The
rejection of claims 11-15 is affirmed.
Claims 16 and 17
The disputed portion of claim 16 recites "a track engaging
element, said element laterally spaced with respect to the coil
spring to enable the antenna to be guided as it is pushed to its
extended position, said track engaging element being a
cantilevered leaf spring" (emphasis added).
Appellant argues (Br6):
The so-called track engaging element in Ishida does not
enable the antenna to be guided as it is pushed to the
extended position. The element in Ishida simply locks the
button or unlocks the button, but has no guiding function.
In other words, the card is in no way guided by an track
engaging element.
The examiner notes that Ishida states that "the follower
end 30 of the line spring 28 slidably engages with the cam
channel 58" (emphasis added) (col. 4, lines 66-67) and operates
similarly to the disclosed cam mechanism and Johnson (EA5). The
examiner states (EA5):
The track engaging element (28) guides movement of the
ejector button section 20 of the ejector (the lower part of
Fig. 9 and col. 5, lines 15-17). To lock or unlock the
button Ishida's track engaging element (28) guides the
ejector button section 20 to the specified fixed positions.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007