Appeal No. 96-1996
Application 08/181,075
door environment, as is claimed by applicant, since
both are providing a means to prevent a door from
completely closing (Answer, page 4).
The examiner's position is undermined out the outset by the
fact that the Swiss reference does not disclose a device for
preventing a door from closing, but for absorbing some of the
force of closing in order to prevent the door from slamming
noisily or being damaged (translation, page 2). The fact that
the door is not prevented from closing is clear from by the last
sentence on page 2 of the translation, which states that the door
is shown in its closed position in bold lines in Figure 5. The
Swiss device comprises a pad 5 mounted on a spring 1. The spring
is attached to a door frame of a swinging door perpendicular to
the door and such that the front face of the pad can intercept
the closing door. As the door swings closed, it engages the
front of pad 5 and its closing force is absorbed by the action of
the spring.
Insofar as the appellant's claims are concerned, this
reference has three basic deficiencies. First, its purpose is
not to block a door from closing, but merely to slow its closing.
Second, there is no teaching in the reference of using it with a
sliding glass door. Third, in order to install the device in
such a fashion as to intercept a closing sliding door with the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007