Appeal No. 2006-0863 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/323,325
ends marked in Xs on the figure submitted by the examiner would not be reasonably
considered an end of an arm. Rather, in our view, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would consider one end of the elongate arm to be where the hook 28 is disposed and
another end of the elongate arm to be disposed at 27.
In addition, in regard to claim 26, the terminal end of the arm is disposed at 27
and is not at all times totally within the profile of the housing 15.
Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 1 and claims
2, 3, 5, 7, to 12 dependent thereon. Nor will we sustain this rejection as it is directed to
claim 26.
In regard to claim 27, we agree with the examiner that the portion of arm 22 may
be considered a second portion and thus as the portion of arm 22 is always within the
profile of housing 15, we will sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 27.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Adams in view of Higuchi. The examiner relies on Higuchi for
teaching a crossbar at one end of the housing.
We will not sustain this rejection because claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and
thus includes the subject matter regarding the other end of the arm being at all times
within the profile of the housing found lacking in Adams and we have examined the
disclosure of Higuchi and found that it does not cure the Adams deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007