Appeal No. 97-3196
Application No. 08/569,275
required by the claim reads on hasp 45 of Renne. What remains
of the claim language is “a hasp holed semicircular flange
with a tongue insert.” While Renne discloses a hasp holed
semicircular flange 35, this element does not have a tongue
insert. The only tongue present in the Renne device is
mounted on the cage, that is, on stationary member 31, which
is a part of the cage and not the semicircular flange.
It therefore is our opinion that the subject matter of
claim 27 does not read on the Renne device, and thus is not
anticipated by this reference. The rejection of independent
claim 27 and, it follows, of dependent claims 28-30, therefore
is not sustained.
The Rejections Under Section 103
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness (In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), which is established when the
teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007