Appeal No. 2000-1649
Application No. 08/951,077
frame. Supplemental lock (9) if left in an
"unlocked" state could arguably be viewed as a
"decoy lock" since the securement of the door to
the frame does not solely rest on this element.
The examiner’s conclusion, not specifically stated, apparently
is that it would have been obvious to provide the dispenser of
Voss with two locks as disclosed by Richardson.
This rejection will not be sustained. In the first
place, we do not agree with the examiner that, giving the term
"decoy" its ordinary and accustomed meaning (In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994)) of
"something intended to allure or entice, esp. into a trap,"4
the second lock 9 of Richardson may reasonably be termed a
"decoy locking mechanism" as called for by claim 14.
Secondly, even if Richardson’s lock 9 were considered a
"decoy", the combination of Voss, De Luca and Richardson would
not meet all the limitations of claim 14, because claim 14
recites a "non-operative decoy locking mechanism" (emphasis
added). Neither of Richardson’s locks 7, 9 is non-operative,
and we do not find (nor has the examiner identified) anything
in Richardson (or De Luca) which would have suggested to one
4Webster’s Third New Int’l. Dictionary (1971).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007