Ex parte SHIELDS E AL. - Page 3

                 Appeal No. 2000-1625                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/942,618                                                                                                             

                 a generic disclosure of a broad class generally does not                                                                               
                 anticipate a species.  See In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026, 1031-                                                                           
                 32, 202 USPQ 175, 179 (CCPA 1979).                                                                                                     
                                                                Rejection (2)                                                                           
                          Haines discloses a door knob construction in which the                                                                        
                 end e of the mounting member f                                 receives the free end of the                                            
                 shaft b of glass knob a at an overlapping region.  Adhesive                                                                            
                 (lead) h adheres the knob and mounting member together at the                                                                          
                 overlapping region, the interior of the blind hole in the knob                                                                         
                 being free of adhesive.  The examiner asserts that, in effect,                                                                         
                 it would have been obvious to make the Haines knob a of                                                                                
                 porcelain instead of glass,  and appellants do not disagree.1                                                                                     
                          Appellants argue that claim 1 distinguishes over Haines                                                                       
                 in that Haines does not disclose that the mounting member                                                                              
                 "includes an annular recess," as claimed.  The examiner                                                                                
                 asserts that the Haines apparatus has such an annular recess                                                                           
                 because there is such a recess between lip (flange) e of the                                                                           
                 mounting member and a plug, shown in the drawings of Haines                                                                            
                 but not labeled or discussed, which occupies the bore of the                                                                           

                          1Cf. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 (1850),                                                                    
                 involving a patent on a clay or porcelain door knob.                                                                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007