Appeal No. 96-2771
Application 08/239,334
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kessler.
Rather than reiterate the examiner’s full explanation of
the basis for the above-noted rejection and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellants regarding
the rejection, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 12) for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection
and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 11) and reply brief (Paper
No. 13) for appellants arguments’ thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claim, to
the applied prior art reference and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that prior art relied
on by the examiner is insufficient to establish the obviousness
of the subject matter of appellants’ claim 13 under 35 USC § 103.
Our reasoning for this determination follows.
Kessler discloses, as depicted in Figures 1 and 2 a nail
fin 12 which is operatively secured to the frame 11 of a window
2. The nail fin has a substantially flat body portion 14 and an
inner end portion 20 for insertion onto a kerf 21. The nail fin
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007