Appeal No. 2002-1591
Application No.09/616,503
of claim 35, that the double claw clip does not define or provide
a “hinge operable to couple an elongate member to a window frame”
and that it would not have been obvious to modify the double claw
clip (155) to do so. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of
claim 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Richter will not be
sustained. The examiner’s rejection of claims 51 through 55, 57
and 59 through 66, which depend from claim 50, will also not be
sustained.
As for independent claim 72, this claim defines a window
shutter system that includes “at least one wall mount operable to
couple the elongate members and the couplers to a surface.”
Again, it appears that the examiner has determined that the
double claw clip (155) of Richter constitutes such a “wall
mount.” For the reasons generally expressed above, we do not
agree that the double claw clip (155) would have been viewed by
one of ordinary skill in the art as a “wall mount operable to
couple the elongate members and the couplers to a surface.” Nor
has the examiner provided any explanation of exactly how the
double claw clip of Richter is structurally and functionally
capable of any such mounting/coupling of the elongate members to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007