Appeal No. 96-1996
Application 08/181,075
door by an attaching member in such a fashion as to allow it to
move by means of gravity into a position interposed between the
door and the frame so that the door is blocked from closing
(claims 15 through 27).
All of the rejections are under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In making
such a rejection, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness (see In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993) and In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), which is established when the teachings
of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art (see
In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976)).
In the first rejection of independent claims 12 and 15, the
examiner has taken the position that the subject matter would
have been obvious in view of the teachings of the Swiss
reference. It is the examiner's view that one of ordinary skill
in the art
would have recognized the teachings of the Swiss
reference, used in a swinging door, and would have
found it obvious to apply those teachings to a sliding
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007