Appeal 2007-0119
Application 10/706,190
does not prevent the door from staying latched. Like Landis, the Appellants have a
stronger spring (coil spring 115) that holds the detent in its latched position
(Spec. 9:0030; fig. 3).
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection of
claims 28 and 30.
Claim 29
Claim 29, which depends from claim 28, requires that “the first frame
member is in opposed relation to the second frame member.”
The Appellants argue: “Landis fails to teach, explicitly or inherently, that the
first frame member is necessarily in opposed relation to the second frame member.
It is possible that the ‘inherent’ first frame member of Landis is adjacent door
jamb 26” (Br. 18-19). The Appellants’ claim 28 requires that the door is hingedly
mounted on the first frame member. Landis’s door swings toward and away from
door jamb 26 in figure 1 and, therefore, is hingedly mounted on the frame member
(first frame member) opposite the door jamb (second frame member).
Hence, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 29.
Claim 32
Independent claim 32 requires “a detent engageable with the keeper for
latching the door in its closed position even during movement of the keeper
relative to the door”.
The Appellants argue that “movement of the [Landis’s] jamb plate 25
relative to the door 1 would prevent the plunger 24 from engaging with jamb plate
25 for keeping the door 1 latched closed. Instead, the jamb plate 25 and plunger 24
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013