Appeal No. 96-1416
Application 08/118,066
said low profile latch mechanism being unlocked and disengaged by inserting
said polygonal-shaped shank of said removable key member through the minimal
access aperture to mechanically disengage said safety key member from said
polygonal-shaped internal channel of said insert member to unlock said low profile
latch mechanism, counter-rotating said removable key member to threadingly
disengage said insert member from said capture floating nut which causes the one
mating edge of the access panel to be pushed outwardly from the frame, and removing
said removable key member upon full disengagement of said insert member from said
captured floating nut wherein the access panel may be manually opened.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Vickers 155,583 Mar. 5, 1954
(Australia)
Cuss 626,013 Jul. 7, 1949
(Great Britain)
Dzus 765,315 Jan. 9, 1957
(Great Britain)
The examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which appellant regards as the invention. Specifically, the
examiner states that the frame is seen to define an access opening as opposed to
appellant’s claimed access panel. The examiner further points to claim 1, line 14, in
which it is said “internal” should be “inner” and line 42 of claim 1 in which “key” should
be “lock.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007