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