Appeal No. 2005-1716
Application No. 10/200,903
the cam piece includes a locking surface that engages with a
surface of the track in the locking position and releases
from the surface of the track in the normal position.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner in the Section 102 and Section 103 rejections before us:
Block 4,872,287 Oct. 10, 1989
Fort et al. (Fort) 6,374,456 Apr. 23, 2002
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Block.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Block in view of Fort.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the appellant and by the examiner, we refer to the brief and
reply brief and to the answer for a complete exposition.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain either of
these rejections.
Appealed independent claim 1 (as well as the other
independent claims on appeal) requires a cam piece which
“includes a locking surface that engages with a surface of the
track in the locking position.” In the examiner’s view, “Block
discloses a cam piece (14) that has a locking surface (92) that
engages with a surface of the track (column 2, lines 45-49, where
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007