Appeal 2007-0703
Application 11/044,945
1 On page 4 of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner states that the ranges
2 illustrated in the Appellants’ diagram of Fig. 19 appear to be based on arbitrarily
3 picked locations of the stop rod 84. The Examiner states “[f]or example, the first
4 range is defined from a contact location of the rod surface and the second fixed
5 member to a midsection of the rod at the first fixed member.” The Examiner
6 reckons this to be an error. However, it can be seen that since the first fixed
7 member 88a in Fig. 19 contacts step 122 on stop rod 84, the correct delimited
8 position of the range of motion is with the first fixed member 88a contacting
9 someplace near the center of stop rod 84. Accordingly, we are convinced that the
10 two ranges of positions illustrated in the Appellants’ diagram are correct and that
11 there is no overlap of these ranges of positions illustrated in Fig. 19 of Stumpf.
12 We are unable to determine, and the Examiner has not discussed, the range
13 of motion with respect to the first embodiment of Stumpf. However, since the only
14 issue raised by the Examiner is with respect to Fig. 19, our decision is bottomed on
15 the finding that Fig. 19 does not show a partial overlap of the first and second
16 range. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established that the claimed subject
17 matter lacks novelty over the disclosure of Stumpf.
18
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013