Ex Parte Rodriguez et al - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-2972                                                                                   
                Application 09/906,227                                                                             

            1                 1.     A dummy conversion bracket for use with a lockset, the                        
            2          lockset having an interior assembly, an exterior assembly, and a                            
            2           thumbpiece, the bracket comprising:                                                        
            3                                                                                                      
            4          a blocking member disposed between the interior assembly and the                            
            5          exterior assembly and coupled to the exterior assembly, the blocking                        
            6          member including an aperture for receiving the thumbpiece, the                              
            7          aperture being configured to restrain movement of the thumbpiece.                           
            8                                                                                                      
            9          The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on                        
          10    appeal is:                                                                                         
          11           Friedman                  US 3,065,624               Nov. 27, 1962                         
          12           Moses                      US 4,055,361               Oct.  25, 1977                        
          13                                                                                                       
          14           The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                          
          15    anticipated by Moses.                                                                              
          16           The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                          
          17    anticipated by Friedman.                                                                           
          18           Appellants contend that neither Moses nor Friedman discloses an                             
          19    aperture configured to restrain movement of the thumbpiece as required by                          
          20    independent claim 1 or an aperture configured to prevent the thumbpiece                            
          21    from pivoting relative to the exterior or interior assembly as required by                         
          22    independent claim 4.                                                                               
          23                                                                                                       
          24                                         ISSUES                                                        
          25           The first issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner                          
          26    erred in finding that Moses and Friedman disclose an aperture configured to                        
          27    restrain movement of the thumbpiece.                                                               
          28           The second issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner                         
          29    erred in finding that Moses and Friedman disclose an aperture configured to                        

                                                        2                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013