Appeal No. 2004-1328
Application No. 09/803,360
There is no specified time limit in each of the independent claims 1, 5 and 9 on appeal.
The reference as relied on and explained by the examiner merely teaches more than
what is required of the independent claims on appeal. Finally, the claims are open-
ended by the use of the term “comprising.”
With respect to the arguments at page 6 of the principal brief on appeal, we note
that simultaneity is only an alternative requirement of representative claim 1 on appeal
as explained earlier in this opinion. Certainly a one-second operation time requirement
of operating the door handle of the reference for at least one second in time is
subsequent to or substantially simultaneous within the context of the recited subject
matter of the independent claims 1, 5 and 9 on appeal.
We are in substantial agreement with appellant’s assertions of pages 7 and 8 of
the principal brief on appeal and pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief that the examiner has
essentially merely alleged in a conclusory fashion that the subject matter of claims 4
and 7 are inherent within the operation of the German patent. From our study of the
translation of this reference, it does not otherwise teach any monitoring of a closing
operation of a window by means of an anti-squeeze device. Therefore, this feature is
not necessarily inherent within the operation of the German patent.
On the other hand, it appears in the record before us that between the
publication date of May 19, 1993 of the German patent relied upon by the examiner and
the effective filing date of the present German application in Germany, it became known
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007