Appeal 2007-0119
Application 10/706,190
presses against a shoulder (29) in the plunger to urge the plunger inwardly toward
the latch releasing position (col. 2, ll. 17-20). “The main spring 9, however,
engages the inner end of the plunger and since the main spring is of greater
strength than spring 28 it forces the plunger into latching position counter to the
action of the spring 28” (col. 2, ll. 20-24). The latch is opened by pressing one of
the buttons, thereby causing “the main spring 9 to bow further in a direction away
from the plunger thereby releasing the plunger for movement by the auxiliary
spring 28 the plunger being thereby forced inwardly, following the bowing of the
main spring, to latch releasing position” (col. 2, ll. 27-32). “As soon as the push
button is released, the main spring 9 tends to straighten and thereby force the
plunger back toward latching position counter to the action of the auxiliary
spring 28” (col. 2, ll. 32-36).
The Examiner argues that Landis’s plunger corresponds to the Appellants’
detent and that Landis’s jamb plate corresponds to the Appellants’ keeper
(Answer 3-4).
The Appellants argue that in the latched position Landis’s secondary
spring (28) does not bias the plunger in the unlatched position because the stronger
main spring (9), acting in the opposite direction, negates any biasing force of the
secondary spring (Br. 17-18). The Appellants argue that “[i]f the Landis plunger
was biased toward the unlatched position when it is in the latched position as
asserted by the Examiner, the Landis latch would not be able to stay latched”
(Reply Br. 2). The Appellants’ arguments are not well taken because the bias of
the Appellants’ detent toward the unlatched position when in the latched position
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013