Appeal No. 1999-1480
Application No. 08/523,330
recited in independent claim 52 are not met by the combined
teachings of the applied prior art (i.e., McRae and Taylor).
In particular, it is our opinion that the combined teachings
of the applied prior art fail to teach or suggest a key
attachment structure comprising a “thermoexpansive clamping
structure.” In our view the nut and bolt taught by Taylor
does not constitute a “thermoexpansive clamping structure” as
defined by appellant. The examiner noted that a nut and bolt
are commonly made of metal and that when metal is heated it
expands; therefore the nut and bolt form a thermoexpansive
clamping structure. As we noted above, appellant clearly sets
forth, on page 5, lines 21-28, of the instant specification,
that “a thermoexpansive material or arrangement of materials
may be used in the slot area or for the entire handle,
allowing easier insertion of a key when the handle is cooled
as in the freezer compartment of a common refrigerator, but
providing increased clamping or retention force when the
handle assembly is allowed to return to room temperature.”
Thus, we interpret the thermoexpansive clamping structure of
claim 52 as being a structure that exhibits the above
characteristics and that relies upon the thermal expansion
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007