Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652
Claim 7:
Claim 7 depends from and further limits the retaining step of claim 6
to include providing positive feed-back to a user that said engaged position
is being maintained. According to the Examiner, by remaining in the
engaged position, Hristake’s device inherently provides positive feed-back
to a user that the device is being maintained in the engaged position (Answer
5). Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not identified which of
Hristake’s structures would inherently provide the claimed limitation (Br.
15).
The invention of claim 7 does not require a particular structure to
provide positive feed-back. Claim 7 simply requires that positive feed-back
is provided to a user that the engaged position is being maintained. We find
no error in Examiner’s finding that by remaining in the retained position the
device provides positive feed-back to a user that the engaged position is
being maintained. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake.
Claim 8:
Claim 8 depends from and further limits the method of claim 6 to
further comprise briefly reapplying a force in the direction of the insertion
force to an outer edge of the device to release the maintained engaged
position.
The Examiner finds that the method steps are inherent to Hristake’s
device, wherein a force is applied to an outer edge to release the device from
its engaged position (Answer 5). In contrast, Appellant argues that Hristake
does not teach reapplication of insertion force to release the device from its
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013