Appeal No. 2004-1114 Page 12
Application No. 10/079,706
The examiner's rationale
The examiner in the final rejection (pp. 3-4) and in the answer (pp. 3-5 & 8-9) has
set forth in great detail how the subject matter of claim 1 was readable on Hart's outer
rose liner 34.
The appellants' argument
The appellants' argue (brief, pp. 6-7) that claim 1 is not anticipated by Hart since
Hart's outer knob 20 is free to rotate about outer thimble 42 and thus Hart's outer rose
liner 34 does not eliminate rotational movement of the outer knob 20.
Our determination regarding claim 1
In our view, claim 1 is readable on Hart's outer rose liner 34. As set forth above,
we understand claim 1 under appeal to be drawn to a stop plate, per se, and not a stop
plate combined with other elements (e.g., the rose liner, the exterior sleeve, the dummy
lockset, the operating handle). As such, claim 1 is drawn to a stop plate comprising,
inter alia, (1) means for aligning an operating handle of the lockset which covers finger
40; and (2) means for eliminating rotational movement of the operating handle about a
longitudinal axis of the lockset which covers the plurality of resilient arms 36. We find,
that claim 1 is readable on Hart as follows: A stop plate (Hart's outer rose liner 34) for
use with a dummy lockset comprising: means for aligning an operating handle of the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007