Appeal No. 1999-0653 Page 8
Application No. 08/226,564
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 13 as being anticipated by
Schou, we note that, although the appellant has stated that each of the claims is "independently
patentable" (main brief, page 5), the appellant has not argued separately the patentability of
claims 2, 6, 7, 9 and 13 apart from claim 1. Therefore, claims 2, 6, 7, 9 and 13 shall stand or
fall with representative claim 1 (see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)).
In rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 13, the examiner (answer, page 4) finds that Schou
discloses a "unitary main body" (sleeve 26) having a "head locking aperture" (the opening in
the end of the sleeve 26 as shown in Figure 8); a "slot-mating head" (rod 10 and lug 13); an
"elongated head locking member" (lug 19); "securing means" (follower 20) and an "attachment
means" (apertures 25, 28).
The device of Schou, which is disclosed for use as a key hole guard, comprises a rod
10 threaded throughout a portion of its length at 11 and provided with a key way 12. A lug is
secured to the end of the rod which enters the key hole and extends radially from the rod. A
key hole closure 15 provided with a lug 19 and a key 18 slides over the rod 10, with the key
adapted to fit into the key way 12. As discussed by Schou (page 1, line 81, to page 2, line
43), the rod 10 and lug 13 are thrust into the key hole, with the lug aligned with the hole, and
then given a quarter turn so that the lug 19 is brought into alignment with the key hole. The
key hole guard is then pushed forward until it is flush with the door casing, at which point the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007