Appeal No. 96-1996 Application 08/181,075 sides, and an attachment member attached to the blocking member. The attachment member is in turn attached to the closure frame in such a fashion that when the sliding closure is moved from the closed to the open position, the blocking member is urged into an operable position to block the closing of the sliding closure. The Swiss reference does not disclose a frame and a sliding closure. Member 5, which contacts the door, is of rounded construction, and thus fails to have the "two parallel opposed sides" which are required by claim 15. These factors, taken with the shortcomings pointed out above with regard to method claim 12, cause us to conclude that the teachings of this reference fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claim 15. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 15 or, it follows, of dependent claims 16 through 19 and 21 through 27, which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over the Swiss reference. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected on the basis of the Swiss reference plus Hoopes, the latter being cited for its teaching of providing "a door blocking member having a square cross section" (Answer, page 5), which in the examiner's view would have been obvious to install in the Swiss device "in order to provide a 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007