Appeal 2007-0119
Application 10/706,190
claim 34.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Landis in view of Kennedy
Kennedy discloses a mine stopping door latch (9) comprising a metal
bar (11) having a detent portion (15) that engages a lug (17, which corresponds to
the Appellants’ keeper) (col. 2, ll. 50-52). “Even though the floor of the passage
blocked by the stopping 5 may heave up, causing the sill of the doorway 3 to heave
up, the door 1 will remain latched, bar 11 being free to swing counterclockwise
relative to the door as the sill heaves up to accomodate [sic] the upheaval of the sill
relative to the door and the detent portion 15 remaining latched behind the lug”
(col. 2, ll. 52-59).
The Examiner argues (Answer 10-11):
The fact that the latch mechanism of Landis is used on a door, to secure a
door in a closed position, and to effectuate that opening of the door would
enable one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that such a latch can
be used on many doors. The only difference between the claimed
mechanism and Landis’s latch is that the claimed mechanism is used in
conjunction with a door in a mine, while Landis is not. However, nothing in
Landis precludes such a use. … One of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that one known latch may be replaced with another known latch to
achieve an identical result.
The Examiner, however, has not provided evidence or technical reasoning which
shows that on a mine stopping door, an identical result would be achieved by a
mine stopping door latch and a closet door latch. Kennedy discloses that
unlatching or jamming of mine stopping doors when mines heave up is a serious
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013