Appeal 2007-0119 Application 10/706,190 opposite the compression gasket (col. 2, ll. 53-57; fig. 3). A compression spring (34) in a well (32) in the housing biases the handle in the unlatched position (col. 2, ll. 47-53). Downward pressure on a trigger (40) in the housing pivots a trigger portion (54) away from a shoulder (55) of the handle, thereby enabling the compression spring to cause the handle to pop up and the adjustment bolt to swing away from the door frame to unlatch the door (col. 3, ll. 24-28; fig. 1). The latch is closed by closing the door and then pushing downward on the handle to bring the bolt to the latch closed position (col. 3, ll. 31-33). The Examiner relies upon Clavin’s bolt and adjustment bolt as corresponding to the Appellants’ detent, and the lower edge of Clavin’s door frame as corresponding to the Appellants’ keeper (Answer 5). The Examiner argues, regarding the combination of Clavin and Kennedy, that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that one known latch may be replaced with another known latch to achieve an identical result” (Answer 8). Clavin is silent as to the environments in which the latch is suitable. The Examiner has not provided evidence or technical reasoning which shows that Clavin’s latch would be suitable in a mine stopping door environment. The Examiner argues that “it appears that even if there were some heaving of the surrounding structure, for example, element 51, that the latch may still operate.” Id. As indicated by the Examiner’s “it appears” and “may still operate” language, the Examiner has provided mere speculation, and such speculation is not sufficient for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013