Appeal No. 2004-1163
Application No. 09/815,959
the main brief and pages 1 and 2 in the reply brief), the
dispositive issue with respect to the anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1 and 16 is whether Fukumoto meets the
limitations in these claims requiring the buffer defined by the
overmold on the latch bolt to be “a sole buffer of the latch bolt
for absorbing over-travel energy.” The examiner views Fukumoto’s
rubber-stopper 22 as meeting these limitations, observing that
“the only buffer on Fukumoto’s latch bolt capable of absorbing
over travel energy is rubber-stopper (22) and that there is no
other buffer on Fukumoto’s latch bolt capable of absorbing over-
travel energy” (answer, page 5). The claim language at issue,
however, does not require a sole buffer on the latch bolt for
absorbing over-travel energy; it instead requires a sole buffer
of the latch bolt for absorbing over-travel energy. This
language is fully consistent with the underlying specification
(see page 2) which indicates that the aim of the appellants’
invention is to provide a latch mechanism having a simplified
over-travel buffer arrangement that eliminates the need for a
separate over-travel buffer on the chassis as well as the cost
and assembly time associated therewith. Given the overall
context in which Fukumoto discusses the rubber-stoppers 22 and
10, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007