Appeal No. 1997-3087
Application 08/541,519
1094 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (held, in case where examiner and Board
alleged that difference between prior art and appealed claim
was “design choice,” that there is no basis supporting
position that a patent applicant’s evidence and/or argument
traversing rejection must be contained within specification in
order to be considered) and In re Kuhle, 526
F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975) (use of electrical
connection which solves no stated problem in lieu of those
used in the reference held to be obvious matter of design
choice within the skill in the art). Fourth, the latch
structure of Guth is much more complex and not at all like the
toggle latch of Bisbing. For example, Guth’s latch mechanism
includes a lockout mechanism 46 for precluding manipulation of
the pivoting latch bolt 40, 42 that has no counterpart in
Bisbing. On the other hand, Bisbing’s spring biased retaining
means for supplying the over center biasing force for the
toggle mechanism of the latch has no apparent equivalent in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007