Office Action, p. 3).1 The examiner has also determined that the structure of Yamane’s
device is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claim. (Final Off ice
Action, p. 3). Regarding claim 51, the examiner has determined that the gear portion 1 60
and the second gear portion 171 of Yamane correspond to the structure in the appellant’s
specif ication for allowing the operating member to rotate the transmission control
member for a selected rotational distance without the second position setting memb er
moving toward the disengagement position. (Final Office Action, p. 8).
The appellant contends that Yamane fails to disclose a dev ice structured so that
when operating member (16) ro tates, it causes rotation of the transmission control
member for a selected rotational distance without moving intermediate elemen t (17) to
the left towa rd the disengagement position. (Appellant’s Brief,
p. 5). The ap pellant explains,
Since drive surfaces (160a) of operating member (16) always
press against driven surfaces (171a) of intermediate element
(17) when operating member (16) rotates in the wire winding
direction shown in Figs. 6(B)-6(D), operating member (16) and
intermediate element (17) always rotate together during that
time. Since takeup member (18) always moves as a unit with
intermediate element (17), and since intermediate element (17)
always rotates together with operating member (16) when
operating member (16) rotates as shown in Figs. 6(B)-6(D), all
three elements (16, 17, 18) rotate together during the
movements shown in Figs. 6(B)-6(D). There is never a time
1 The Examine r in his answer to the Appellant’s Brief merely incorporated by reference theexaminer’s
response to theAppellant’s arguments in the final rejection on March 14, 2005. The Examiner is
admonished not to rely on such incorporation by reference in future answers. See M.P.E.P. § 1207.02
(Rev. 3 Augus t 2005) (“If there is a complete and thorough development of the issues at thetime of final
rejection, it ispossible to save time in preparing the examiner’s answer required by 37 CFR41.39 by
copying a rejection from a prior Office action and then pasting the copied rejection into theanswer. An
examiner’s answer should not refer, either directly or indirectly, to any prior Office action without fully
restating the point relied on in the answer.”) (emphasis added)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007