Appeal No. 1997-3403
Application No. 08/032,889
With respect to claims 4, 8 and 12, representative claim
4, like claims 8 and 12, contains the recitation of the type
“latching engagement with a corresponding latching projection
along said corresponding wall section of said panel.” The
Examiner alleges that such a latching mechanism is “well
known” in the art [answer, page 5]. We do not agree because
claim 4 calls for certain inter-fitting elements which coact
to make the latching mechanism operate. Such elements are not
shown by the applied prior art. Therefore, we do not sustain
the obviousness rejection of claim 4 and of its grouped claims
8 and 12 over Smith and Rodrigues.
In summary, we have sustained the decision of the
Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejecting claims 1 to 3, 5 to
7, 9 to 11 and 13 to 15, but have not sustained the decision
with respect to claims 4, 8 and 12. Accordingly, we affirm-
in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007