TriTeq Lock and Security LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2020

2019006213 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/866,525 04/19/2013 Calin Roatis TLS-P003 5390
12224 7590 07/01/2020
Charles T. Riggs Jr.
551 Forest Ave.
River Forest, IL 60305
EXAMINER
LUGO, CARLOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2020 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CALIN ROATIS, GABRIEL RIBU,
and WILLIAM DENISON
____________

Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.

JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner’s
decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated May 7, 2018, rejecting
claims 3–11, 13–19, and 21–25, which are the claims currently pending
(Appeal Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies TriTeq Lock and Security LLC of Elk
Grove Village, Illinois as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
2
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter “relates to latching and locking handles
and, more particularly, relates to electronic control of the locking function of
Lift-Handle and T-Handle products.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 3, 14, 22, and 23
are independent. Claim 3 is reproduced below, with emphasis added:
3. A wireless lock assembly for selectively
locking and unlocking a handle positionable in a
housing, the assembly comprising:
a locking element, selectively positionable
between a lowered position and a raised position,
for selectively locking the handle in the housing;
and
an electronically controlled locking
mechanism, selectively positionable in a set lock
position, a set unlock position and a set latch
permitting position, for selectively controlling
movement of the locking element;
wherein the locking mechanism includes a
blocking portion to prevent movement of the
locking element away from the lowered position
toward the raised position when the locking
mechanism is in its lock position.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 3–6, 11, 13, 14, 19, 21, 24, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Claghorn (US 5,813,257, issued
Sept. 29, 1998).
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
3
2. Claims 3–6, 10, 13, 14, 18, and 21–25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Bond (US 4,167,104, issued
Sept. 11, 1979).2
3. Claims 7–9, 15–17, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Claghorn and Roatis (US 6,581,986 B2, issued
June 24, 2003).
4. Claims 7–9, 15–17, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Bond and Roatis.
5. Claims 3–6, 10, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wiczer (US 3,834,198, issued
Sept. 10, 1974) and Claghorn.
6. Claims 3–6, 10, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wolniak (US 3,438,227, issued
April 15, 1969) and Gokcebay (US 6,826,935 B2, issued Dec. 7, 2004).

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Of the claims at issue in this rejection, claims 3 and 14 are
independent. Claim 3 requires the recited “locking mechanism” to be
“selectively positionable in a set lock position, a set unlock position and a
set latch permitting position.” Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.). Claim 14
requires the recited “locking mechanism” to be “selectively positionable in a
first set position, a second set position and a third set position.” Id. at 31.

2 We agree with Appellant that the lead paragraph of this rejection
(Final Act. 3 (bottom)) should include claim 10 rather than claim 11. See
Appeal Br. 11 n.1. The outcome discussed below, however, would be
substantively the same in either situation.
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
4
The Examiner identifies gearbox 50, cam member 54, and spring 58 in
Claghorn, collectively, as the “locking mechanism” and relies on Figure 7 as
depicting the “set unlock position” in claim 3 and the “second set position”
in claim 14. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 4, 7–8, 10. Below, we reproduce
Figure 7 and related Figure 8 of Claghorn.

Figure 7 is “an enlarged view of the electrically controllable locking
device . . . shown in an unlocked position,” and Figure 8 is “a side view
illustrating the relative position of the cam member [54] and latch
member” 34 shown in Figure 7. Claghorn 3:3–6.
Addressing claim 3, Appellant states that, “[i]n Claghorn, a locking
mechanism (locking cam) 54, is rotated once to lift a locking element (latch
member) 34, out of a groove 32 in a lock barrel 18 of a handle 28” and that,
“[d]uring an unlocking operation, the locking cam 54 makes one full
rotation.” Appeal Br. 7 (citing Claghorn 5:2–6). Appellant contends that the
claimed
locking mechanism . . . has three different set positions while the
locking mechanism (cam 54) of Claghorn only has one set
position (i.e., distinct positions where the locking mechanism is
selectively moved to and stops in each position, remaining set or
at rest in such a position until moved to another position).
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
5
Appeal Br. 8; id. at 7 (“Claghorn’s locking cam 54 only has one set position,
i.e., that shown in Figures 6 and 10.”). Appellant relies on the same
argument for the identified limitation in claim 14. Id. at 8–9.
In response, the Examiner repeats the position that Figure 7 depicts
“an unlock position” as recited in claim 3 (Ans. 7–8) and a “2nd set position”
as recited in claim 14 (id. at 10), but the Examiner does not explain
persuasively how Claghorn satisfies the claimed “set” positions recited in
both of the limitations at issue.
Although Figures 7 and 8 depict an “unlock position” (see, e.g.,
Claghorn 4:34–45), we agree with Appellant that they do not depict a “set
unlock position” or a “set second position.” See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d
1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (“All words in a claim must be considered in
judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.”). As noted by
Appellant, Claghorn discloses that cam 54—part of the identified “locking
mechanism”—is rotating during the unlocking operation depicted in
Figures 7 and 8, and is thus not in a “set” position. See Claghorn 4:57–61
(“During an unlocking operation, the cam member 54 continues to rotate
until, as shown in FIGS. 9 and 10, the portion 64 of latch member 34 aligns
with the slot 68 of cam member 54 and is pulled therein due to the biasing of
spring 58.”), cited at Reply Br. 7; Claghorn 5:2–6 (“Specifically, during an
unlocking operation a current is delivered to the motor 44 for a period of
time which allows the cam member 54 to rotate one time until the portion 64
of latch member 34 becomes positioned within the slot 68.”), cited at Appeal
Br. 7.
For these reasons, we do not sustain this rejection of independent
claims 3 and 14, and also do not sustain this rejection of claims 4–6, 11, 13,
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
6
and 24 (which depend from claim 3) and claims 19, 21, and 25 (which
depend from claim 14).
Rejection 2
This rejection addresses all four independent claims at issue. Similar
to claim 3 (discussed above), claim 23 recites a “locking mechanism” that is
“selectively positionable in a set lock position, a set unlock position and a
set latch position.” Appeal Br. 33 (Claims App.). Claim 22 recites various
steps, including “positioning” a “locking mechanism” in a “set lock
position,” “a set unlock position,” and a “set latch permitting position.” Id.
at 32. As discussed above, claim 14 requires the recited “locking
mechanism” to be “selectively positionable in a first set position, a second
set position and a third set position.” Id. at 31.3
The Examiner identifies solenoid 30, armature 32, and spring 40 in
Bond, collectively, as the “locking mechanism.” See Final Act. 3–5;
Ans. 12. As to the “set latch permitting position” in claim 3, the Examiner
stated, “when motor 30 is turned off after the handle is moved to the position
in fig 2, the spring 40 will bias the locking element 33 toward the hole 35.”
Final Act. 4. Below, we reproduce Figure 2 from Bond.

3 We refer to these four limitations, collectively, as the “set position”
limitations.
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
7

Figure 2 is a “is a fragmentary side elevation view, partially in cross section,
of the solenoid enabled draw lock of [Bond] in the energized or unlocked
condition.” Bond 1:58–61.
Appellant argues that “the locking mechanism . . . of Bond only has
two positions” rather than the “three different positions” recited in the “set
position” limitations. Appeal Br. 13. According to Appellant, the identified
“locking mechanism” in Bond is “either in an off, locked position or an
energized, unlocked position” such that “[t]here is no distinct third position
of the locking mechanism.” Id. Appellant relies on the same argument for
the “set position” limitations in claims 14, 22, and 23. Id. at 13–15.
In response, the Examiner quotes a paragraph from Bond, with the
emphasis shown below.
Electric current may be supplied to energize the solenoid
30 by means of leads 41 from a source of electrical power, not
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
8
shown. When solenoid 30 is so energized armature 32 will be
drawn inwardly and downwardly, as shown in FIG. 2, thereby
withdrawing dead bolt 33 from within apertures 35, 36 and 37.
Solenoid 30 will retain dead bolt 33 in this position as long as
electric current is supplied to leads 41. With dead bolt 33
withdrawn, rear portion 10 of handle 8 may be moved relative to
lock housing 3 to disengage lock 1 as described hereinbefore.
With solenoid 30 energized, spring 40 is fully extended, thereby
providing a force tending to urge dead bolt 33 upwardly when
armature is released by disconnecting the source of electric
current to leads 41.
Ans. 15 (quoting, with emphasis added, Bond 4:9–23). According to the
Examiner, “Bond discloses that after unlocking, the solenoid 30 is capable of
being turned off, so then the spring 40 will move toward the handle, creating
the ‘3rd position.’” Id.
The passage highlighted by the Examiner does not expressly disclose
deenergizing solenoid 30 when in the configuration shown in Figure 2. And,
although anticipation can be based on what one of ordinary skill in the art
would reasonably understand or infer from a reference (see, e.g., In re
Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968)), the record does not support the Examiner’s
finding on this issue. Instead, the passage quoted and the surrounding
discussion emphasizes the need to maintain solenoid 30 in an energized state
when in the configuration shown in Figure 2 before locking the cabinet as
shown in Figure 1. See, e.g., Bond 4:24–39 (“In operation, beginning with
lock 1 in the closed position as depicted in FIG. 1, solenoid 30 is energized
to withdraw dead bolt 33 from apertures 35, 36 and 37. . . . Thereafter, lock
1 may be unlocked in the conventional manner to gain access to the interior
of the vending machine cabinet. In locking the cabinet, the reverse
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
9
procedure is followed, it being insured that dead bolt 33 is withdrawn when
handle 8 is retracted into lock housing 3.” (emphasis added)).
For these reasons, we do not sustain this rejection of independent
claims 3, 14, 22, and 23, and also do not sustain this rejection of claims 4–6,
10, 13, and 24 (which depend from claim 3) and claims 18, 21, and 25
(which depend from claim 14).
Rejections 3 and 4
Claims 7–9 depend from claim 3, and claims 15–17 depend from
claim 14. Appeal Br. 30, 32 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s added reliance
on Roatis does not remedy the deficiencies in the rejection based on
Claghorn, discussed above, regarding claims 3 and 14 (see supra Rejection
1) or the deficiencies in the rejection based on Bond, discussed above,
regarding claims 3 and 14 (see supra Rejection 2). Thus, for the same
reasons discussed above, we do not sustain these rejections of claims 7–9
and 15–17.
In the context of Rejection 3, the Examiner relies on Claghorn to
address the “set position” limitations in claims 22 and 23. See Final Act. 5
(relying on Roatis only as teaching “that it is well known in the art to
provide a similar assembly having a wireless signal receiving circuit (D) to
control the locking mechanism”). Thus, for the same reasons discussed
above (see supra Rejection 1), we do not sustain this rejection of claims 22
and 23.
In the context of Rejection 4, the Examiner relies on Bond to address
the “set position” limitations in claims 22 and 23. See Final Act. 6 (relying
on Roatis only as teaching “that it is well known in the art to provide a
similar assembly having a wireless signal receiving circuit (D) to control the
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
10
locking mechanism”). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above (see
supra Rejection 2), we do not sustain this rejection of claims 22 and 23.
Rejection 5
This rejection addresses independent claims 3, 14, and 22, each of
which, as discussed above, recites a “set position” limitation. The Examiner
identifies rotary member 14, “means” 15, and spring 69 in Wiczer,
collectively, as the “locking mechanism.” See Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 17. As
to the “set latch permitting position” in claim 3, the Examiner stated, “when
key [17] is returned to original position, the spring 69 will bias the pin 65 to
the position shown” in Figure 1 of Wiczer (reproduced below). Final Act. 7.

Figure 1 is “is a full cross sectional view of the device of the invention,
shown installed with a lock in a panel.” Wiczer 1:55–56.
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
11
Appellant argues that “the locking mechanism . . . of Wiczer only has
two positions” rather than the “three different positions” recited in the “set
position” limitations. Appeal Br. 23. According to Appellant, the identified
“locking mechanism” is “either in a locked position or an unlocked position”
such that “[t]here is no distinct third position of the locking mechanism.” Id.
at 23–24. Appellant relies on the same argument for the “set position”
limitations in claims 14 and 22. Id. at 24–25.
In the Answer, the Examiner again addresses the “set latch permitting
position” in claim 3 (and the similar limitations in claims 14 and 22), stating:
“if the user decides to turn the key to the original position while the handle is
in the extended position (fig 1), the spring 69 will bias the pin 65 toward the
handle, therefore ‘selectively’ controlling movement of the locking element,
creating the ‘3rd position’.” Ans. 17.
The record here does not support the Examiner’s finding as to the
teachings of Wiczer. As argued by Appellant, the configuration relied upon
by the Examiner as to the “set latch permitting position” in claim 3 is not
disclosed or suggested by Wiczer. See Reply Br. 8. The Examiner does not
identify any record support for the relevant findings. See Final Act. 7;
Ans. 17. Instead, the Examiner relies on the possibility of a user
reconfiguring Wiczer, but does not show that, or explain why, a user would
reconfigure Wiczer. See Ans. 17 (discussing a configuration “if the user
decides to turn the key to the original position while the handle is in the
extended position (fig 1)” (emphasis added)). A rejection, however, cannot
be based on “speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
12
For these reasons, we do not sustain this rejection of independent
claims 3, 14, and 22, and also do not sustain this rejection of claims 4–6, 10,
13, and 24 (which depend from claim 3) and claims 18, 21, and 25 (which
depend from claim 14).
Rejection 6
A. Claims 3–5, 10, and 13
For the claims in this group, Appellant argues the patentability of
independent claim 3 and does not provide separate arguments for claims 4,
5, 10, and 13, which depend from claim 3. Appeal Br. 26–29; Reply Br. 9.
We address claim 3, with claims 4, 5, 10, and 13 standing or falling with
claim 3. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
For claim 3, the Examiner relied on Wolniak for certain limitations
but stated that “Wolniak fails to disclose that the lock mechanism is
electrically controlled. Wolniak disclose[s] a manual operation.” Final
Act. 9–10. The Examiner found, however, that “Gokcebay teaches a similar
device wherein it use an electronic mechanism (191) to operate a blocking
unit (187).” Id. at 10. According to the Examiner, it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “to
operate the lock mechanism described by Wolniak electronically, as taught
by Gokcebay, since it has been that providing a mechanical or automatic
means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result
involves only routine skill in the art.” Id.
First, Appellant states that the Examiner finds that “spring 46[,] used
to bias the bolt 41[,] is the claimed blocking portion.” Appeal Br. 27. But,
according to Appellant, “spring 46 is not a portion of the locking mechanism
(stud 49)[,] which is used to raise the bolt 41 out of opening 44”; rather,
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
13
spring 49 “is a wholly separate element.” Id. We reproduce Figures 1, 2, 3,
4, and 4A of Wolniak below.

Figure 1 is “a central sectional view through a lock embodying the
invention, illustrating the handle in its wholly retracted position”; Figure 2 is
“a central sectional view as in FIG. 1 illustrating the handle in its extended
position”; Figure 3 is “a vertical sectional view taken generally along the
line 3-3 of FIG. 1, illustrating the bolt holding the handle in its retracted
position with the lock’s key removed”; Figure 4 is “a vertical section view
taken generally along the line 4-4 of FIG. 2, illustrating the bolt as
positioned when the handle is in its extended position with the key in”;
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
14
Figure 4A is “a view similar to that of FIG. 4 with the key removed.”
Wolniak 1:63–2:5.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner identified plug assembly 19
as the “locking mechanism,” but also stated that “the locking mechanism
includes a blocking portion (46)” and that the “locking mechanism
comprises a lifting portion (49).” Final Act. 9. In the Answer, the Examiner
identified elements 19, 46, and 49 together as the “locking mechanism.”
Ans. 19. Responding to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner also refers to a
prior discussion (in the context of Rejection 1) addressing a similar
argument by Appellant. Id.; compare Appeal Br. 8 (arguing that “spring 58
[in Claghorn] is not a portion of the locking mechanism (locking cam 54)”),
with id. at 27 (arguing that “spring 46 [in Wolniak] is not a portion of the
locking mechanism (stud 49)”). In that discussion, the Examiner states that
“[a]s well known in the art, the term ‘mechanism’ is a system of parts that
works together in a machine or device that makes it work to perform a
function.” Ans. 5. The Examiner also refers to paragraph 50 of the
Specification and argues that “the locking mechanism is actually the
MCU 64, which will include an assembly of parts to perform the locking
function.” Id. at 6; see also Spec. Fig. 12 (showing MCU 64).
In Reply, Appellant similarly refers to its prior discussion in the
context of Rejection 1, where Appellant refers to paragraph 8 of the
Specification and argues that CAM 55 is properly understood as the “locking
mechanism” in the Figure 12 embodiment. See Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant
also highlights online dictionaries defining “mechanism” as “a piece of
machinery” and “a system for achieving a result.” Id. at 5 (citing Merriam-
Webster online dictionary).
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
15
As an initial matter, the arguments as to whether MCU 64 or CAM 55
are properly understood as the “locking mechanism” in the Figure 12
embodiment of the Specification do not squarely address the issue here,
which is the proper scope of the term “locking mechanism.” See MBO
Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (discussing how “patent coverage is not necessarily limited to
inventions that look like the ones in the figures”). Further, to the extent
Appellant argues that the depicted embodiment limits the scope of “locking
mechanism” to a unitary structure, as opposed to a collection of structures,
we disagree. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from
the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only
embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”).
Here, the Specification does not use the term “locking mechanism.”
And, as Appellant acknowledges, the plain and ordinary meaning of
“mechanism” at least includes a “system for achieving a result” (Reply
Br. 5), which closely aligns with the definition proposed by the Examiner—
“a system of parts that works together in a machine or device that makes it
work to perform a function” (Ans. 5). On the record here, we agree with the
Examiner that the scope of “locking mechanism” includes a system of parts
that work together to perform a locking function. Accordingly, we see no
error in identifying spring 46 as one of the parts of the “locking mechanism”
merely because that structure is separate from other identified structures in
the “locking mechanism.”
Second, Appellant argues that, although spring 46 “would provide
some resistance to the bolt being raised out of opening 42, it does not
prevent movement as does [the recited] blocking portion.” Appeal Br. 27;
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
16
see also id. at 30 (reciting, in claim 3, that “the locking mechanism includes
a blocking portion to prevent movement of the locking element away from
the lowered position toward the raised position when the locking mechanism
is in its lock position”). The Examiner responds that, as seen in Figure 3,
“the locking mechanism has a blocking portion (46 biasing the locking
element 65 toward the handle) that prevents movement of the locking
element to the raised position.” Ans. 19. In Reply, Appellant contends that
“a spring does not prevent movement.” Reply Br. 9.
The record supports the Examiner’s finding that, in the configuration
shown (for example) in Figure 3 of Wolniak, spring 46 satisfies the
limitation at issue. Wolniak discloses that spring 46 “urge[s] the bolt [41]
into opening 44 in cylinder 12,” as shown in Figure 3. Wolniak 3:11–13.
No structure aside from spring 46 is disclosed as maintaining bolt 41 in the
“lowered position” when the “locking mechanism is in its lock position”
(i.e., in Figure 3). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that spring 46 satisfies
the limitation at issue.
Third, we turn to the “set position” limitation in claim 3. The
Examiner identified Figure 3 in Wolniak as the “set lock position,” Figure 4
as the “set unlock position,” and Figure 4A as the “set latch permitting
position.” Final Act. 9. Discussing the “set latch permitting position,” the
Examiner states that “if the user decides to remove the key while the handle
is in the extended position, the device will be positioned in the position
shown above, creating the ‘3rd position’.” Ans. 20.
Appellant argues that “such an unlikely hypothetical scenario is not
taught, suggested or disclosed in Wolniak, and has only been ‘created’ in
hindsight of [the] claims.” Reply Br. 9. We are not apprised of error based
on this argument. In contrast to the situation discussion above as to
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
17
Rejection 5, here, the Examiner’s position as to the “set latch permitting
position” is supported by both Figure 4A itself, and the following express
disclosure describing that Figure:
FIGURE 4A illustrates the relationship when the handle is
extended and the key is removed. Actually a spring-bolt self-
locking feature is provided whereby the handle may be pushed
in to lock the lock without using a key. The bolt will snap from
its position in FIG. 4A to its position in FIG. 3 when the handle
is pushed into its recess.
Wolniak 3:50–56. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 3. Claims 4, 5, 10, and 13 fall with claim 3.
B. Claims 14, 18, 21, and 22
For the claims in this group, Appellant argues the patentability of
independent claims 14 and 22 together, and does not provide separate
arguments for claims 18 and 21, which depend from claim 14. Appeal Br.
27–28; Reply Br. 9. We address claim 14, with claims 18, 21, and 22
standing or falling with claim 14. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
For claim 14, the Examiner relied on Wolniak and Gokcebay in the
same manner summarized above as to claim 3. See supra Rejection 6 § A.
Appellant first relies on the same three arguments discussed above as to
claim 3. See id.; see also Appeal Br. 7 (arguing claim 14 is patentable “for
the reasons discussed with respect to Claim 3”). For the same reasons
discussed above, we are not apprised of error in the rejection of claim 14
based on those three arguments.
In addition, Appellant argues that “Wolniak’s bolt 41 is internal of the
handle shaft 18, and engages a cylinder 12 in housing 10” such that “bolt 41
does not engage the handle 16 or handle shaft 18.” Appeal Br. 27.
Although Appellant does not specifically identify the claim language at issue
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
18
with this argument, we note that claim 14 requires that “when the locking
mechanism is in the first set position, the locking element is in the handle
interference position in engagement with the handle.” Appeal Br. 31
(Claims App.).
In response, the Examiner refers to Figure 3 of Wolniak, stating that,
“in the locking position (1st set position), the locking element (41) is
engaged to the handle (being received into hole 44).” Ans. 19.
The record supports the Examiner’s finding that, in the Figure 3
configuration, the identified “locking element” (bolt 41) engages with the
identified “handle” (handle 16). Specifically, Wolniak discloses that sleeve
portion 18 is part of handle 16, and both Figures 3 and 1 show bolt 41
engaging sleeve portion 18 (including at end wall 39). See also Wolniak
3:7–17 (disclosing how sleeve portion 18 and bolt 41, among other
structures, interact to maintain handle 16 in a locked position). For these
reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 14, 18, 21, and 22.
C. Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 3 and recites, among other limitations,
that “the locking element is biased to the lowered position by a biasing
element providing a biasing force when the locking mechanism is in the set
latch permitting position.” Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that in Figure 4A—i.e., the identified “set latch
permitting position”—the identified “locking element” (bolt 41) “is in its
raised or retracted position . . . not the lowered position as the locked
position of Wolniak’s Figure 3.” Appeal Br. 29. The Examiner does not
address this argument. See Ans. 18–20.
We agree with Appellant that Wolniak does not disclose this
requirement of claim 6. Claim 3 requires that the “locking element” is in the
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
19
“lowered position” when the “locking mechanism” is in the “set lock
position” and dependent claim 6 requires that the “locking element” is in the
“lowered position” when the “locking mechanism” is in the “set latch
permitting position.” Comparing the identified “set lock position” (Figure 3)
and the identified “set latch permitting position” (Figure 4A), however, the
identified “locking element” (bolt 41) is in different locations. For this
reason, we do not sustain this rejection of claim 6.
D. Claims 24 and 25
Claims 24 and 25 depend from claims 3 and 14 respectively, with
both adding the requirement that “the locking element and the locking
mechanism are operatively mounted adjacent to the housing and external of
the handle.” Appeal Br. 33 (Claims App.). In the Final Office Action, the
Examiner recites this language but does not identify any support in Wolniak.
See Final Act. 10.
Appellant argues that “Wolniak’s locking mechanism and locking
element are not mounted adjacent to the housing and external of the handle”;
rather, “[t]hey are internal of the shaft of the handle.” Appeal Br. 29 (citing
Wolniak Figs. 1 & 2). The Examiner does not address this argument. See
Ans. 18–20.
We agree with Appellant that Wolniak does not satisfy this
requirement of claims 24 and 25. Specifically, as shown in Figures 1 and 2,
at least the majority of the identified “locking mechanism” (elements 19, 46,
and 49) and the identified “locking element” (bolt 41) are internal to the
identified “handle” (handle 16). For these reasons, we do not sustain this
rejection of claims 24 and 25.

Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
20
CONCLUSION
We affirm in part the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–11, 13–19, and
21–25.
More specifically, we (1) reverse the decision to reject claims 3–6, 10,
11, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 21–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), (2) affirm the
decision to reject claims 3–5, 10, 13, 14, 18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, and (3) reverse the decision to reject claims 6–9, 15–17, and 23–25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
3–6, 11, 13,
14, 19, 21,
24, 25
102(a)(1) Claghorn
3–6, 11,
13, 14, 19,
21, 24, 25
3–6, 10, 13,
14, 18, 21–
25
102(a)(1) Bond
3–6, 10,
13, 14, 18,
21–25
7–9, 15–17,
22, 23 103 Claghorn, Roatis
7–9, 15–
17, 22, 23
7–9, 15–17,
22, 23 103 Bond, Roatis
7–9, 15–
17, 22, 23
3–6, 10, 13,
14, 18, 21,
22, 24, 25 103 Wiczer, Claghorn
3–6, 10,
13, 14, 18,
21, 22, 24,
25
3–6, 10, 13,
14, 18, 21,
22, 24, 25
103 Wolniak, Gokcebay
3–5, 10, 13,
14, 18, 21,
22
6, 24, 25
Overall
Outcome
3–5, 10, 13,
14, 18, 21,
22
6–9, 11,
15–17, 19,
23–25
Appeal 2019-006213
Application 13/866,525
21
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED IN PART