Appeal 2007-0827
Application 10/220,682
the turning of the antenna, would also achieve the engagement of the
projections (27) with the vehicle body, the projections also rotating with the
antenna and with respect to the vehicle body" (page 5 of Answer, second
para.).
Appellants respond to the Examiner's rationale by stating that the
Examiner's "assertions are not only unsubstantiated, but plainly wrong since
Chadowski explicity [sic] states that the nut (6) is 'rigidly secured' to the
lower section 3 of the antenna," citing the reference at column 2, lines 22-24
(page 2 of Reply Br., last para.). Appellants contend that "the antenna and
the nut 6 cannot be rotated independently of one another, as suggested by the
Examiner, but instead, rotate in unison to upwardly lift the clamping fingers
27 into their locking position" (page 3 of Reply Br., first sentence).
Appellants maintain that "the rotation of the nut 6 and/or the antenna merely
threads the lower portion 39 of the actuating element 37a through the
bushing 33 to lift rather than rotate the clamping fingers 27" (page 3 of
Reply Br., first para.).
We note that while the Examiner noted and entered Appellants' Reply
Brief, the Examiner did not respond to Appellants' argument in the Reply
Brief.
Accordingly, this application is remanded to the Examiner to afford
her the opportunity of responding to the pertinent argument alleged by
Appellants in the Reply Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013