Appeal No. 2003-0187
Application No. 09/134,109
members (20). We see nothing wrong in the examiner construing the
upstanding portion of the housing member (12) carrying hinge
latches (13), as seen in Figure 3 of Lay, as “a base” and the
larger area portion of the housing member to which the springs
(20) are fixedly attached as “a wall extending from said base.”
Where we disagree with the examiner is in finding that Lay has
securement members (claim 49) or mating mechanisms (claim 55) on
both the housing member wall and the insert, which securement
members and mating mechanisms, respectively, cooperate or mate
with one another to secure the insert to the housing member wall.
The only disclosure we find in the Lay patent regarding how
the inserts (30) are secured relative to the housing wall of the
container therein is found at column 2, lines 17-20, wherein it
is noted that the disc envelopes (30) include “bottom surfaces
which may be affixed to individual spring member appendages 22
through any well known technique.” Thus, we find that it is
unclear from the Lay patent as to exactly how the envelopes (30)
are affixed to the individual spring member appendages (22). In
light of this ambiguity, in our opinion, it is rank speculation
on the examiner’s part to conclude that Lay “clearly teaches
tenons 22 on the container to engage the recesses on the insert
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007