Appeal No. 97-3194 Page 19
Application No. 08/442,816
Johnson does provide the necessary teaching, reason,
suggestion, and motivation to replace Damon's ratcheting type
lock with the more formidable lock taught by Johnson.
With respect to claim 4, the appellant argues (brief, p.
17) that Johnson does not disclose the use of ratchet teeth
and a spring biased pawl as claimed. We do not agree. The
claimed ratchet teeth which fully circumscribe the arm read on
Johnson's grooves 50 and the claimed spring biased pawl reads
on Johnson's spherical bearing 60 biased by spring 62.
With respect to claims 37 and 38, the appellant argues
(brief, pp. 21-23) that the applied prior art does not teach
or suggest the lock housing being "enclosed in a protective
cover" as recited in claim 37 or the protective cover
comprising "bubble wrap material" as recited in claim 38. We
agree. First, the examiner's determination that plastic
coating 40 of Johnson was a "bubble wrap" material is without
a proper foundation. In that regard, Johnson describes the
coating 40 as being a durable plastic coating and is shown in
Figure 5 as a flat coating. Thus, there is no evidentiary
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007