Appeal No. 97-1330
Application 08/345,813
of Perrot would be used to prevent the lock member 18 in '461
from being pulled from its location and to keep it secured to
the frame. Appellant argues that '461 "already includes its
own shoulders (see Figs. 1 and 5), making the shoulders of
Perrot unnecessary" (RBr2) and that "[a] skilled artisan would
not modify the rivet of Perrot to include the removable
securing means of '461 because the rivet is clearly intended
to permanently, not temporarily, hold bridge 2 on the frame 1"
(RBr2).
We agree with Appellant's arguments. While the stud 34
in Perrot is very similar in appearance to the bolt in
Appellant's drawings, the Examiner errs in finding that the
only difference between the subject matter of claim 1 and '461
is the shoulders. The lock member 18 in '461 is spring biased
and does not "rotate while remaining at a constant height in
relation to the frame" as recited in claim 1. The rejection
does not address this difference. Perrot discloses a stud 34
which is riveted to the base plate 1 and the bridge 2 to
permanently fix the bridge to the base plate. Thus, Perrot
does not disclose securing a detachable member or rotating a
fixation element to allow a detachable element to be unlocked
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007