Appeal No. 2000-0078
Application No. 08/837,242
Rejection (4)
In making this rejection, the examiner asserts that it
would have been obvious to provide the Nolte window latch
assembly with a motor and gear reduction in view of Wydler,
and further to mount the keeper assembly on the sash and the
cams on the jamb, instead of the reverse arrangement disclosed
by Nolte, this being a mere reversal of the essential working
parts of a device which involves only routine skill in the art
(citing In re Einstein,
46 F.2d 373, 8 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1931)).
We agree with the examiner that, in view of Wydler, it
would have been obvious to motorize the Nolte apparatus so
that the keeper 40 would be moved by a motor acting through a
reduction gear set. However, we do not agree with the6
examiner that it would have been obvious to locate Nolte’s
keeper 40 on sash 16, and cams 100, 110 on the jamb 14. While
it has been held in such cases as Einstein, supra, In re
Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 452,
104 USPQ 400, 402 (CCPA 1955), and In re Weber, 312 F.2d 810,
6In fact, it appears from page 1, lines 21 to 23 of the
specification that such motorized apparatus was already known
in the art when the application was filed.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007