Appeal 2006-1417
Application 09/326,405
Appellant also maintains that Lazarek “clearly does not suggest any
method for ‘mounting the screen in a permanent manner’ as set forth in
Appellant’s claims” (principal Br. 7, second paragraph). This argument is
not germane to the claimed subject matter since the quoted recitation is not
found in the appealed claims. Indeed, rather than calling for mounting the
screen in a permanent manner, the claims recite a removable screen.
Appellant also makes the argument that:
Claims 20 and 25 recite an additional limitation in which
the removable screen is mounted between the fixed frame and
the moving sash such that the moving sash is in contact with the
removable screen when the moving sash is in the closed
position such that the hook and loop fastener is engaged.
(principal Br. 8, second paragraph). However, as accurately noted by the
Examiner, Figure 3 of Kehne “shows the sash touching the screen when the
sash is in the closed position” (Supp. Answer 8, last paragraph).
As for the separately argued claims directed to the window system
being non-rectangular, we concur with the Examiner that Jones evidences
the obviousness of making windows of various shapes.
Appellant relies upon the Helzer and Thompson Declarations under
37 C.F.R. § 1.132 as evidence of commercial success. However, we find
that the Examiner has lodged valid criticisms regarding the weight of the
Declaration evidence. For instance, the Declaration of Helzer, the Vice
President for Marketing and Sales for the present assignee, states in
paragraph 15 that Point Five Windows, the exclusive licensee of a window
system in accordance with the appealed claims, “has sold over $6,300,000 in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007