Ex parte GAPCO - Page 15

          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                

               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                  

Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007