Appeal No. 1999-1480
Application No. 08/523,330
the implement being permanently bonded to the end of the key.”
To provide for these perceived differences between McRae and
the claimed subject matter, the examiner observed that Thomas
teaches the use of a double sided adhesive tape (104) to bond
a key (16) to a key handle (90). From these teachings, the
examiner concludes that for the purposes of comfortably
allowing a person with arthritis to use a key to open a lock
and for securely holding the key in place, one having the
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
permanently bond the key to the holder of McRae, as taught by
Thomas.
The examiner has failed to provide a prima facie case of
obviousness for the invention as claimed. We agree with the
examiner that the combination of McRae and Thomas provides an
adhesive bond between the handle and the key, however, it is
clear to us that the adhesive tape (104) in Thomas does not
provide a “permanent” bond between the handle and the key as
is required in claim 63 on appeal.
In view of our interpretation of the terminology
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007