Ex Parte Kalargeros et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2004-1163                                                          
          Application No. 09/815,959                                                    


          latch bolt can receive a striker of a vehicle, a closed position              
          in which said striker is capable of being retained by said latch              
          bolt, and an over-travel position in which said striker is in an              
          over-travel position relative to said chassis; and                            
               an overmold disposed on said latch bolt and defining a                   
          buffer for contact with the over-travel abutment due to over-                 
          travel of said latch bolt, wherein the buffer is a sole buffer of             
          the latch bolt for absorbing over-travel energy.                              
                                    THE PRIOR ART                                       
               The references relied on by the examiner to support the                  
          final rejection are:                                                          
          Fukumoto                   5,020,838                Jun. 4, 1991              
          Mitsui                     5,642,636                Jul. 1, 1997              
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                       
               Claims 1, 11 and 13 through 16 stand rejected under 35                   
          U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fukumoto.                             
               Claims 2 through 10 and 12 through 14 stand rejected under               
          35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of             
          Mitsui.                                                                       
               Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (Paper                
          Nos. 19 and 21) and to the final rejection and answer (Paper Nos.             
          11 and 20) for the respective positions of the appellants and the             
          examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.                            





                                           2                                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007