Appeal No. 96-3033
Application 08/139,574
anything fairly taught by the references themselves. From our
perspective, nothing in Rogers can be fairly said to correspond
to the elongate plate 20 of Reed, which is rotatably mounted on
the same stationary support member, the doorjamb, as the
restraint member 16. Conversely, nothing in Reed can be fairly
said to correspond to the striker bar 13 of Rogers, which is
mounted on a different support member, the gate, than the
backplate or “doorjamb restraint” 21. Given their disparate
manners of operation and their different objectives, it is our
view that the only suggestion for combining Reed and Rogers so as
to arrive at the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 11
stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from
appellant’s own disclosure. It follows that we cannot sustain
the standing § 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 9 and 11.
Turning to claims 5, 6, 8 and 10, Church discloses a door
latch comprising (1) a plate 5 having a bent portion 6 provided
with a serrated edge 8 for mounting on a doorjamb, and (2) a
rigid key member 10 having a first tapered portion 12 receivable
in a slot 9 of the plate and a second flange portion 18 for
engaging the door. In operation, the plate is positioned against
the doorjamb and the door is closed to cause the serrated edge to
dig into the doorjamb. Next, the tapered portion of the key is
inserted into slot 9 in the plate until end 12 of the key
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007