Ex parte SHAPIRO - Page 3




                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