Appeal No. 96-2860 Page 7
Application No. 08/049,408
22 and detent 23) that claim 41 is not readable on the resulting
device. In that regard, the resulting device would not have an
elongated snap-fit post which (1) extends from an inner surface
of a panel, and (2) is substantially perpendicular to and
non-coplanar with the cartridge housing. This is due to the fact
that the resulting device would have been provided with a spring
arm (similar to Johnson's spring arm 22) which would have
extended parallel to the cartridge housing, not substantially
perpendicular to the cartridge housing as recited in claim 41.
We note that the spring arm of the resulting device must be
considered to be part of the recited snap-fit post since the
claim requires the snap-fit post to extend from the inner surface
of the body panel.
The examiner's rejection set forth three differences between
the claimed subject matter and Döppel (i.e., the snap post detent
means, plural panels and design shape). The examiner's rejection
then determined the obviousness of the snap post detent means.
However, the examiner never determined the obviousness of the
plural panels and the design shape. Thus, the examiner did not3
3While the examiner set forth the teachings of Bingham and
Bernstein, this by itself, is not a determination of obviousness.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007