Appeal No. 96-1996
Application 08/181,075
Matti 2 152,184 Apr. 1, 1932
(Swiss reference)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 12 through 20 and 23 through 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable over the Swiss reference.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the Swiss reference in view of Hoopes.
Claims 12 through 19 and 21 through 27 also stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the Swiss
reference in view of Salerno.3
Claim 20 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the Swiss reference in view of Salerno and
Salvador.3
The rejections are explained in the several Answers.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the several Briefs.
OPINION
The appellant's invention is directed to a method for
blocking a sliding door from closing (claims 12 and 13), and to a
blocking member which is suspended from the frame of a sliding
2 PTO translation enclosed.
3 These are new rejections made for the first time in the
Examiner's Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007