Appeal No. 2006-1145 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/143,977
We are not persuaded by appellant’s assertion that there is no teaching or
suggestion that the suspension structure may be used to close an opening. Firstly,
claim 1 does not recite closing an opening. Secondly, from the structure of post 20, as
described, supra, we find that post 20 is inherently capable of being mounted in a door
or window frame because of the telescoping nature of the parts of the post.
Nor are we persuaded by appellant’s assertion (brief, page 11) that the
telescopic support column 20 of Moses “may not be mounted within a frame of a
window or door, nor would there be any reason to do so.” Appellant has not provided
any convincing reasons as to why the post 20 of Moses could not be mounted within a
door or window frame.
Nor are we persuaded by appellants’ assertion (brief, page 12) that Moses does
not teach a structure that can fasten to a frame at its second end, and that even if the
plate 60 were mounted at the top of a door or window frame, it would not be mounted at
the bottom, as the entire purpose of the structure of Moses is to allow the device to
hang free in a suspended position. From the disclosure of Moses that foot plate 64 has
holes 66 therein (figure 2) for allowing the telescoping column 20 to mount to support
beam 40, we find that by virtue of the holes 66 in foot plate 64, redundant the
telescoping column 20 is inherently capable of being mounted to the bottom frame of a
door or window.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007