Appeal No. 2004-1114 Page 13
Application No. 10/079,706
lockset (Hart's tab 52); and means for eliminating rotational movement of the operating
handle about a longitudinal axis of the lockset (Hart's tabs 57 with spurs 58).
The appellants' argument that claim 1 is not anticipated by Hart since Hart's
outer knob 20 is free to rotate is not persuasive since claim 1 is directed to the stop
plate, per se, and not a stop plate combined with a nonrotatable operating handle.
Hart's outer rose liner 34 is fully capable of being used with a nonrotatable operating
handle. Moreover, while Hart's outer knob 20 is free to rotate it also can be selectively
prevented from rotating.3
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
Claims 2 to 4
The appellants have grouped claims 1 to 4 as standing or falling together.4
Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 2 to 4 fall with claim 1. Thus,
3 Hart teaches (column 2, lines 21-24) that "[l]ocking mechanism (not fully shown) is provided to
selectively enable or disable the outer knob 20, so that the door may be locked to prevent entry from the
outer side."
4 See page 5 of the appellants' brief.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007