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 11Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007