Appeal 2007-1212
Application 10/278,319
We will sustain the Examiner's § 112, first paragraph, rejection of
claims 34-45 inasmuch as we fully concur with the Examiner that the claim
recitations "a resilient member cantilevered with respect to the inner
peripheral surface" (claim 34) and "the plurality of walls being more rigid
than a blocking member" (claim 39) do not find original descriptive support
in Appellant's Specification. Appellant has accepted the Examiner's
dictionary definition of the term "cantilever" as "a projecting member
supported at only one end," but Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner's
analysis that Appellant's structure 78 "flexible fingers," although qualifying
as the claimed projecting member, is supported at both ends and, therefore,
is not cantilevered. Appellant erroneously states in the Reply Brief that "the
Examiner has, in the contrary, pointed out the ability to recognize the
claimed subject matter by suggesting a potential 'pivot point' located 'near
the end of the line from which reference number 64 is directed in Figure 6'"
(page 4, Reply Br., first para.). In fact, the relevant portion of the Answer
reads "[i]t is also noted that each of the fingers does not have a pivot point at
its base (near the end of the line from which reference number 64 is directed
in Figure 6)" (page 12 of Answer, second para., emphases added).
Appellant has simply not explained how his Specification or drawings
clearly supports a resilient member cantilevered with respect to the inner
peripheral surface of the hand operator 60.
We also agree with the Examiner that there is no original descriptive
support for the claim 39 recitation of "a blocking member configured to
block axial separation of the operator with respect to the retaining nut." The
original Specification does not describe a blocking member and it is not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013