Appeal No. 96-2771
Application 08/239,334
includes a fold line 16 so that the nail fin can be folded in the
manner illustrated by the dashed line depiction in Figure 2 to a
position “along the side of frame 11" so that the window and nail
fin occupy less space when the window and nail fin are placed in
a carton for shipping (Col. 3, lines 30-37).
The examiner is of the opinion that Kessler discloses a
nail fin as claimed except that the Kessler fold line does not
allow the nail fin to lie flush against the window frame.
However, the examiner stated:
... as Kessler states the fold line is so positioned
that little additional space is occupied which is the
same result as applicant is trying to achieve.
Therefore, it is deemed an obvious matter of design
choice to have placed the fold line closer to the
frame than to have the fold line where Kessler has
placed his because booth [sic] [K]essler and
applicant strive to achieve the same result.
[Examiner’s Answer at pages 2-3].
We do not agree. We find nothing in Kessler that teaches
or suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art locating the
fold line 16 closer to the frame. Rather, Kessler discloses at
Col. 3 lines 38-42:
Wing or flange 19 is formed integrally with the2
nailing section 14 of the nailing fin and extends
out over the hinge section... In this arrangement,
2Flange 19 is improperly labeled “18" in Figure 2. In
accordance with Kessler (Col. 3, lines 1-3) 18 is the tongue
portion.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007