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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007