Ex parte RITZ et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No.96-0601                                                           
          Application 08/104,965                                                      


               Claims 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(e) as being            
          anticipated by Camps.                                                       
               Claims 9, 10, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103           
          as being unpatentable over Camps.                                           
               Each of the above-noted rejections is based upon the                   
          examiner’s view that                                                        
               since the force that can be applied by different people                
               varies greatly, the examiner is of the opinion that                    
               making the box and lid [of Camps] out of the disclosed                 
               materials would inherently allow the box and lid to be                 
               deformed to some extent by a person.  With sufficient                  
               pressure exerted on the box and lid, the examiner                      
               contends that the lid would become removed from the                    
               box.  It should also be noted that the claim does not                  
               prohibit the application of some other force at some                   
               other location to assist in the operation of the latch                 
               means.  One could manually grasp and flex the box and                  
               lid while additional pressure is exerted directly on                   
               the latches and tabs.  In either situation, the claim                  
               limitations are deemed to be met by CAMPS. [Answer,                    
               page 4.]                                                               
               We will not support the examiner’s position.  Independent              
          claims 4 and 9 each expressly requires a latch means                        
               for mechanically latching said first and second                        
               sections to one another and for mechanically unlatching                
               said first and second sections from one another in                     
               response to manual deformation of said first section                   
               between said pivot point and said latch means.                         
               [Emphasis ours.]                                                       
          The examiner concedes that Camps does not specifically teach such           
          an arrangement but, nevertheless, takes the position that the               

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007