Appeal 2007-0119
Application 10/706,190
opposite the compression gasket (col. 2, ll. 53-57; fig. 3). A compression
spring (34) in a well (32) in the housing biases the handle in the unlatched position
(col. 2, ll. 47-53). Downward pressure on a trigger (40) in the housing pivots a
trigger portion (54) away from a shoulder (55) of the handle, thereby enabling the
compression spring to cause the handle to pop up and the adjustment bolt to swing
away from the door frame to unlatch the door (col. 3, ll. 24-28; fig. 1). The latch is
closed by closing the door and then pushing downward on the handle to bring the
bolt to the latch closed position (col. 3, ll. 31-33).
The Examiner relies upon Clavin’s bolt and adjustment bolt as
corresponding to the Appellants’ detent, and the lower edge of Clavin’s door frame
as corresponding to the Appellants’ keeper (Answer 5).
The Examiner argues, regarding the combination of Clavin and Kennedy,
that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that one known latch may
be replaced with another known latch to achieve an identical result” (Answer 8).
Clavin is silent as to the environments in which the latch is suitable. The Examiner
has not provided evidence or technical reasoning which shows that Clavin’s latch
would be suitable in a mine stopping door environment. The Examiner argues that
“it appears that even if there were some heaving of the surrounding structure, for
example, element 51, that the latch may still operate.” Id. As indicated by the
Examiner’s “it appears” and “may still operate” language, the Examiner has
provided mere speculation, and such speculation is not sufficient for establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013