Appeal No. 1998-1937
Application No. 08/518,509
what element or elements of Holmes correspond to Carson’s lid
stays 56. Presumably, the examiner equates the combination of
levers 6 and compensating bars 12 of Holmes to Carson’s stays
56, a proposition which we find to be, at best, strained. In
any event, we find nothing in Holmes that corresponds to
Carson’s viscous dampers 50. Further, we find nothing in
Holmes that corresponds to Carson’s combination spring loaded
hinge and slide mechanisms 26. In addition, in Holmes the
door is stored within the compartment in the open condition
rather than on top of the compartment as in Carson. Also,
there is nothing in Carson that reasonably corresponds to the
compensating bar 12 of Holmes, nor is there any apparent need
in Carson for such compensating bars in that the Carson device
relates to a relatively light door for
an overhead cabinet whereas the Holmes device relates to a
relatively heavy door for a garage or the like (column 2,
lines 2-7). For these reasons, we find the examiner’s
threshold determination that Holmes “functions similar to
Carson” applies only when these references are viewed in the
very general sense that both relate to an overhead door
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007