Appeal 2007-0119
Application 10/706,190
“the catch that holds the hammer of a gunlock at cock or half cock”.2 The
Appellants’ sear is a catch having an outward wall (102) that “prevents pivoting of
the detent 51 when the detent is in the cocked position” (Spec. 7:0026; figs. 3, 5A).
Landis’s spring 9 is not a catch and, therefore, is not a sear.
Hence, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation of
the invention claimed in the Appellants’ claims 31 and 33.
Claim 34
Independent claim 34 requires “at least one handle mounted on the door, the
handle being mounted on the door independent of the trigger.”
The Appellants argue (Br. 23-24) that Landis’s handles are not mounted
independently of buttons 6 and 7 because “[p]ush buttons 6 and 7 are received
axially within the handles 4 and 5, each push button having a flared inner end 8
adapted to engage the inner flared portion of the handle and thereby limit
movement thereof in an outward direction” (col. 1, ll. 58-62). The Appellants’
claim 34 merely requires that the mounting of the handle is independent of the
trigger. The claim does not require that the mounting of the handle is independent
of the mounting of the trigger. Landis’s handles are mounted using screws 20
and 21 (col. 2, ll. 7-8) regardless of whether the push buttons are present. The
features argued by the Appellants, i.e., the receipt in the handles of push buttons
having flared inner ends to limit their outward movement, pertain to the mounting
of the push buttons, not the mounting of the handles.
Therefore, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of
2 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1042 (G. & C. Merriam 1973).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013