Appeal 2006-2253
Application 10/464,595
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Robbins US 5,295,447 Mar. 22, 1994
Dhont US 5,397,237 Mar. 14, 1995
Appellant’s Prior Art Admission (“AAPA”) on page 5 of Specification
REJECTIONS
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
Claims 1 to 9, 11 to 13 and 15 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dhont in view of Robbins.
Claims 10, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dhont and Robbins and further in view of AAPA.
The Examiner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would have been motivated to modify the Dhont
device so as to be comprised of a thermally resistant material, as taught by
Robbins, in order to provide the device in Dhont with fire-resistant
properties that would safeguard any items located within the enclosure in the
event of a fire.
The Appellant contends that the Examiner has failed to cite a credible
or legitimate suggestion to modify the Dhont device so as to be comprised of
a thermally resistant material as taught by Robbins.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013