Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,015
The problem is that the claim limitation is misdescriptive
of the described invention. As discussed in connection with
claim 11, we interpret the claimed "track" to actually refer to
the described "groove" 44. That must be the case here because
the limitation recites "said track engaging element being a
cantilevered leaf spring," whereas the disclosed track engaging
elements, L-shaped resilient arms 30 on each side of the track 28
(spec. at 5, lines 17-21), are not leaf springs. The claim
limitation is misdescriptive because the end 36a of the catch 36,
the "track engaging element," does not "enable the antenna to be
guided as it is pushed to its extended position." Guiding of the
antenna is performed as the U-shaped housing 30 is guided by the
track (spec. at 5, lines 19-21). In addition, claim 16 is
misdescriptive because it is directed to a "traveler" in the
preamble, and the coil spring and track engaging element are not
part of the traveler. We leave it to appellant and the examiner
to fix these problems.
Nevertheless, we affirm the rejection because the
combination of Johnson and Ishida teaches as much as disclosed.
The cam follower 104 corresponds to the "track engaging element"
in claim 16, except that it is not a "cantilevered leaf spring."
We agree with the examiner that one skilled in the art would have
been motivated to make the cam follower 104 in Johnson as a
"cantilevered leaf spring" given the teaching in Ishida that cam
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007