position setting member moving toward the disengagement position,” as recited in claim
51. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 51.
With regard to remaining rejected dependent claims 2-24, because these claim
rejections rely upo n the underlying rejection of in ntdepende claim 1, we also reverse the
examiner’s rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
To summariz e, the decision of the examine ct claims 1-24 and 5r to reje 1 is
reversed.
REVERSED
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JENNIFER D. BAHR ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LINDA E. HORNER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007