Ex parte AMES et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 95-4047                                                           
          Application 07/931,206                                                       


          temporary replacement motor vehicle window, comprised of two                 
          sheets of flexible transparent film which are attached such                  
          that they form an envelope which will fit snugly over the                    
          frame of a vehicle door.  Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as               
          follows:                                                                     
               1.  A temporary replacement window comprising:                          
               two sheets of a flexible transparent film pre-cut to a                  
          pattern that is shaped to snugly fit over a broken window                    
          frame on an automobile or motor vehicle;                                     
               and means of attaching the two sheets of a flexible                     
          transparent film, along a portion of their edges, so that                    
          together the two sheets form an envelope which will fit snugly               
          over the frame of a vehicle door having the broken window.                   
                                    THE REFERENCES                                     
          Vargas                           4,889,754       Dec. 26, 1989               
          Schramer et al. (Schramer)       5,044,776       Sep.  3, 1991               
          Miles Kimball Co. Catalog (Miles Kimball), page 58 (Dec.                     
          1990).                                                                       
                                    THE REJECTIONS                                     
               Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                
          unpatentable over Vargas or Miles, each taken with Schramer.                 
          These claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first                
          and second paragraphs, on the grounds that the claimed                       
          invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and                  

                                           2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007