Appeal No. 2004-0827
Application No. 09/795,701
for the reasons stated in the Brief, Reply Brief, and those reasons
set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds, and appellant does not contest, that
Nielsen discloses a locking assembly for a utility box comprising
every claimed limitation except that Nielsen fails to disclose or
suggest that the lock assembly contains a jaw mechanically
interengaged with and carried by the bracket that clamps the first
flange against the side wall (Paper No. 11, pages 2-3; see also the
Answer, page 3, Findings 1-8, and page 4; and the Brief, page 3,
¶8). The examiner further finds that Redmayne discloses a lock
assembly comprising a lid and a jaw, including mechanical
interengagement of the jaw and the lid and force exerting means
urging the jaw towards the first flange to clamp the sidewall
(Paper No. 11, page 3; Answer, page 4). From these findings, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art “to have the jaw with the force exerting
means taught by Redmayne in the lock assembly disclosed by Nielsen”
to ensure proper clamping of the jaw and the sidewall (Paper No.
11, page 3; Answer, paragraph bridging pages 4-5). We disagree.
As correctly argued by appellant (Brief, page 4; Reply Brief,
pages 1-2), the examiner has not identified any convincing reason
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007