Appeal No. 96-3033
Application 08/139,574
c. a central plate latch that engages the upper edge of
the central plate to releasably secure the central plate in
engagement with the doorjamb restraint to prevent rotational
movement of the central metal plate.
The following references are relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Reed 1,288,988 Dec. 24, 1918
Church 1,549,182 Dec. 10, 1923
Rogers 4,871,203 Oct. 3, 1989
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:3
Claims 1-4, 7, 9 and 11, unpatentable over Reed in view of
Rogers.
Claims 5, 6, 8 and 10, unpatentable over Reed in view of
Church.
Reed, the primary reference applied in support of each of
the rejections, discloses a drop bolt system for door security
comprising a doorjamb restraint 16 mounted on a doorjamb by spurs
18, and a rotatably mounted elongate plate 20 for engaging a slot
22 in the doorjamb restraint. The doorjamb restraint 16 may
optionally be mounted to the doorjamb by a wood screw “[i]f it
3A rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, made in the final rejection, has been withdrawn by the
examiner in view of the amendments filed subsequent thereto. See
the advisory letter, mailed March 21, 1995 (Paper No. 7), the
examiner’s answer (page 2), mailed November 14, 1995 (Paper No.
11), and the supplemental examiner’s answer (page 1), mailed
April 1, 1996 (Paper No. 13).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007