Appeal No. 2006-0679 Page 5
Application No. 09/997,934
project by more than twice the thickness T of the sheet
metal.
Given the disparate structures and functions of Koll’s handle assembly and
Willems’ latch, Willems would not appear to provide any suggestion to modify the Koll
handle assembly to provide a base plate to which the bracket plate is mounted and to
provide raised or projecting parts, such as projecting parts 127, 128 of Willems, on such
base plate to keep objects away from Koll’s handle, as the examiner contends on pages
4 and 5 of the answer.1 From our perspective, the only suggestion for modifying Koll’s
handle assembly in this manner is found in the luxury of hindsight accorded one who
first viewed appellant’s disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the following new
ground of rejection.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Koll.
Unlike claims 1-12, claims 29 and 30 do not recite a handle-mounting plate on
the base plate or any of the details of the handle. Koll discloses a handle assembly
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007