Appeal No. 96-1996
Application 08/181,075
to have adapted the door blocking member of Swiss to an
installation in a sliding door environment, as taught
by Salerno so as to provide blocking . . . as well as
lessen the sound of closing the door" (Answer, page 7).
However, this would require utilizing the Swiss pad in a manner
not taught by the reference, that is, as a blocking device rather
than an absorber, and with the side rather than the front of pad
5 in contact with the door. From our perspective, the only
suggestion for doing so is found in the luxury of the hindsight
accorded one who first viewed the appellant's disclosure which,
of course, is impermissible. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness is not established,
and we will not sustain this rejection of claims 12 through 19
and 21 through 17.
Nor will we sustain the rejection of claim 20, which depends
from claim 15, as being unpatentable over the Swiss reference and
Salerno, taken further with Salvador. While Salvador discloses
attaching a door stop to the door frame with hook-and-loop
fasteners, it does not cure the deficiencies in the combination
of the two basic references, which were discussed above.
None of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007