Appeal 2007-0924
Application 10/401,079
Claim 2 recites "a retraction mechanism for biasing the expandable
structure to the retracted state" and claim 5, which depends from claim 2,
further recites "wherein a retraction mechanism includes a spring." Claim
17 recites "means for biasing the expandable structure to a retracted
position."
The Examiner's basis for the rejection, as articulated on page 3 of the
Answer, is that "[i]t is not clear how an elastic material can be construed as a
retraction mechanism when the ribbon is in an expanded form." The
Examiner contends that an elastic material does not meet the definition of
"mechanism" as "… a process, physical or mental, by which something is
done, or comes into being" offered by Appellant (App. Br. 12) because an
elastic material is not considered a process (Ans. 6) and further that an
elastic material does not meet the more appropriate definition of
"mechanism" as "a system of parts that operate or interact like those of a
machine" or "[t]he arrangement of connected parts in a machine" (Ans. 7).
First, we note that neither claim 2 nor claim 5 is limited to an "elastic
material" and the Examiner appears to concede that spring mechanisms and
biased rotating pins, two of the other retraction mechanisms disclosed in
Appellant's Specification, are "mechanisms" (Ans. 7). Claim 17 does not
even recite a "retraction mechanism" but, rather, recites a "means for
biasing" and thus does not appear to suffer from the deficiency alleged by
the Examiner in any event. Moreover, while a single component, such as an
elastic material, may not be a system of parts so as to technically meet the
definition of "mechanism" applied by the Examiner, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand what is meant by claims 2, 5 and 17 when
these claims are read in light of the Specification. Specifically, a person of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013