Appeal No. 1999-1480
Application No. 08/523,330
make up for this difference between McRae and the claimed
subject matter, the examiner observed that Thomas clearly
teaches a slotted key holding apparatus provided with a key
attachment structure (34e in Figs. 10-12), presumably
considered by the examiner to be a resilient directional
retention structure. From these teachings, the examiner
concludes that for purposes of providing more holding
security, one having the ordinary level of skill in the art
would have found it obvious to include in the key holding
apparatus of McRae, a key attachment structure, as taught by
Thomas.
After reviewing the collective teachings of McRae and
Thomas, we, like appellant, are of the view that the key
attachment structure of Thomas is a symmetric, non-directional
detent and not a directional retention structure as required
in claim 57 on appeal. As defined in appellant’s
specification (page 5), the “resilient directional retention
structure” is a “series of resilient directional . . . ridges
6, teeth or the like [which] can be inwardly oriented from
each wall [of the slot] to allow easy insertion of the key
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007