Appeal No. 1999-1480
Application No. 08/523,330
therefore required by dependent claims 64, 65 and 67-70,
wherein a “permanent bond” is a connection between two
elements that is intended to last indefinitely without change
and which can only be separated by destroying at least a
portion of one of the bonded elements. Further, claim 64
requires that the “key is adhesively bonded to said handle”.
Adhesively bonded is understood from page 5, lines 16-20, of
appellant’s disclosure to be, e.g., “double-sided adhesive
foam tape”. The disclosed adhesive bond is not a “permanent
bond”. With respect to claim 65, this claim requires the key
to be “interference bonded” to said handle. Interference
bonded is understood from page 5, lines 29-35 and page 6,
lines 1-4 of appellant’s disclosure and shown in Figure 1B to
be resilient directional or nondirectional ridges, teeth or
the like that require significantly higher force and/or
deformation of the slot to remove the key. Therefore, an
interference bond is also not a “permanent bond”.
Next we turn to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007