Ex parte SHAPIRO - Page 9

          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.                              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007