Appeal No. 1997-3403
Application No. 08/032,889
resilient member 88 may be considered to have a pair of
opposed resilient strips. Finger-like members 46 of Rodrigues
would have been provided to strips 88 of Smith to provide
opposed resilient strips. We agree with the Examiner that
even though Rodrigues does not show a second pair of opposed
resilient strips, it would have been obvious for an artisan to
add additional resilient strips since Rodrigues contemplates
this at col. 3, lines 33 to 34. Thus, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 2 and its grouped claims 6 and
10.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12
With respect to this group of claims, Appellants argue
that the references do not suggest a latching recess.
However, we note that none of the claims 3, 7 and 11 contains
the latching feature. Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not
applicable to claims 3, 7 and 11.
Moreover, with respect to the representative claim 3,
Rodrigues does show a slot, defined by member 34 which fits a
corresponding wall section of enclosure 10. Thus, we sustain
the obviousness rejection of claim 3 and its grouped claims 7
and 11.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007