Appeal 2007-0119
Application 10/706,190
would be misaligned thereby rendering the latch inoperable” (Br. 22). The
Appellants argue that “the latch mechanism 50 of this [the Appellants’] invention
has been designed so that it will remain in tight latching engagement with the
keeper 57 even though there is a significant change in the position of the keeper.”
See id. The Appellants’ claim 32 does not require a significant change in the
position of the keeper. That claim merely requires movement of the keeper
relative to the door. As shown in Landis’s figure 1, the jamb plate can be moved to
the right relative to the door without the plunger becoming disengaged from the
jamb plate provided that the jamb plate is not moved past the lower end of the
plunger.1
Hence, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 32.
Claims 31 and 33
Claims 31 and 33, which depend, respectively, from claims 30 and 32,
require that “the latch mechanism includes a sear for holding the detent in the
latched position and wherein actuation of the trigger causes release of the detent
from the sear.”
The Examiner argues that Landis’s plunger 24 is cocked by spring 28, and
that Landis’s spring 9 functions as a sear because it maintains the plunger in the
cocked position until one of the buttons (6, 7) is actuated (Answer 14). A sear is
1 As indicated by the curved portion of jamb plate 25 in Landis’s figure 1, the door
opens by rotation in the clockwise direction.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013