Appeal No. 96-3033
Application 08/139,574
overlaps the doorjamb and flange portion 18 engages the door with
a tight fit. Thereafter, a thumb screw or pin 14 is positioned
in one of the holes 13 in the tapered portion of the key to
prevent the key from becoming dislodged.
In rejecting claims 5, 6, 8 and 10, the examiner has taken
the position that
Church teaches a well known latch pin means
comprising a pin which, once a plate is
retained within a doorjamb restraint, is
received into a hole in the plate 13 to latch
the plate and restraint together. It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the plate and restraint of
Reed by providing a latch pin means as taught
by Church to enhance the security of the latch.
[final rejection, page 4]
The examiner’s position is not well taken. We acknowledge
that both Reed and Church are door security systems comprising a
doorjamb restraint mounted to the doorjamb, and an elongate plate
engaging the restraint and overlapping both the doorjamb and the
door to prevent the door from being opened. Notwithstanding
these similarities, the examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 8
and 10 based on Reed and Church appears to us to be founded on
the use of impermissible hindsight gleaned from first reading
appellant’s disclosure rather than from what the references
fairly suggest. Our reasons follow.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007