Appeal No. 2004-1163
Application No. 09/815,959
appreciate both of these elements to be buffers for absorbing
over-travel energy of Fukumoto’s latch bolt 2. Thus, the rubber-
stopper 22 does not constitute “a sole buffer of the latch bolt
for absorbing over-travel energy” as recited in claims 1 and 16.
Fukumoto’s latch mechanism has two buffers to perform this
function, rather than a sole buffer.
Thus, the appellants’ position that the latch mechanism
recited in claims 1 and 16 distinguishes over that disclosed by
Fukumoto is well taken. Hence, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1 and 16, and
dependent claims 11 and 13 through 15, as being anticipated by
Fukumoto.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2 through 10 and
12 through 14 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of
Mitsui
The examiner’s application of Mitsui does not cure the above
noted deficiency of Fukumoto with respect to the subject matter
recited in independent claim 1. Consequently, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 2 through 10 and 12 through 14 as being unpatentable over
Fukumoto in view of Mitsui.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007