Appeal No. 1999-1506
Application 08/815,151
examiner evidently proposes to do. 4
The rejection of claim 33, dependent on claim 32,
likewise will not be sustained.
We now turn to claim 18, which requires, inter alia, that
the locking means be "rigid in structure." Such a locking
means is not taught by Crockett because, as discussed above,
bolts 24, 26 of Crockett are stops, not locks.
The examiner alternatively asserts that it would have
been obvious to provide Benninger with a rigid locking means
in view of Revol, which discloses a device for anchoring a peg
in a wall, the device being inserted in a hole in the wall and
then pulled so that cone 7 expands socket 11 to anchor the peg
in the hole (col. 3, lines 39 to 58). However, after
considering the references and the arguments of appellant and
the examiner, we agree with appellant that Revol would not
suggest to one of ordinary skill substitution of its locking
mechanism for the lock 68 of Benninger. Assuming that Revol
constitutes analogous art, the lock disclosed therein is for
permanently locking a peg
4Revol, the other secondary reference, does not disclose
a screw-threaded locking means.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007