Appeal No. 96-1996
Application 08/181,075
sides, and an attachment member attached to the blocking member.
The attachment member is in turn attached to the closure frame in
such a fashion that when the sliding closure is moved from the
closed to the open position, the blocking member is urged into an
operable position to block the closing of the sliding closure.
The Swiss reference does not disclose a frame and a sliding
closure. Member 5, which contacts the door, is of rounded
construction, and thus fails to have the "two parallel opposed
sides" which are required by claim 15. These factors, taken with
the shortcomings pointed out above with regard to method claim
12, cause us to conclude that the teachings of this reference
fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard
to the subject matter of claim 15.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 15 or, it follows, of dependent claims 16 through 19 and 21
through 27, which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over
the Swiss reference.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected on the basis of the Swiss
reference plus Hoopes, the latter being cited for its teaching of
providing "a door blocking member having a square cross section"
(Answer, page 5), which in the examiner's view would have been
obvious to install in the Swiss device "in order to provide a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007