Appeal 2007-0119
Application 10/706,190
problem (col. 1, ll. 16-23), and that Kennedy’s latch solves that problem (col. 2,
ll. 52-68). The Examiner argues that Landis’s plunger (24) would move vertically
up and down, in and out of engagement with Kennedy’s lug (17) (Answer 11).
Both Kennedy (col. 2, ll. 54-59) and the Appellants (Spec. 10:0031) use a bar
having a detent thereon that swings toward a mine stopping door to maintain
engagement of the detent with a lug or keeper such that the door remains latched
and unjammed after the mine floor heaves up. The Examiner has not established
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Landis’s latch having a
plunger moved up and down by a spring between two push buttons to be effective
in keeping a mine stopping door latched and unjammed in that situation. Nor has
the Examiner established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led
to modify Landis’s latch to provide it with that capability.
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed invention over the combined disclosures of
Landis and Kennedy.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Clavin in view of Kennedy
Clavin discloses a trigger latch for a door (50) that engages a compression
gasket (52) on a door frame (51) (col. 3, ll. 19-23). The latch comprises a
housing (11) having a handle (12) and a bolt (13) with an adjustment bolt (37) on
its end that engages the side of the door frame opposite the compression gasket
(col. 2, ll. 16-17; 57-58). A mounting bracket (35) is attached to the underside of
the housing and bears against the inner end of the door on the side of the door
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013