Appeal No. 96-0873
Application 08/132,380
In rejecting the claims as being unpatentable over De Vries in view of Maynard, the
examiner concedes that De Vries does not disclose the use of frictional forces between
the telescoping tubes to inhibit relative movement therebetween, or the use of such forces
in conjunction with spring forces to maintain the window panel at a desired height. The
examiner contends, however, that (1) the members 1, 4 of Maynard are in contact with one
another; (2) this contact results in a frictional force between members 1 and 4; (3) in view
of this circumstance it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
provided a “contacting fit” between the tubes of De Vries “to provide a more solid
connection” (answer, page 3); and (4) the thus modified De Vries device would
correspond to the claimed subject matter.
We cannot accept this position. Assuming arguendo that the examiner is correct in
2
his position that Maynard is analogous art ; a proposition which we find to be questionable,
it is our view that the collective teachings of the applied references would not have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to De
Vries, the examiner does not contend, and it is not apparent to us, that the telescoping
tubes 1, 2 cooperate with each other to generate frictional forces of any meaningful
Appellant strenuously argues on pages 4-7 of the brief that Maynard is nonanalogous art with2
respect to the claimed invention.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007