Appeal No. 98-1183 Page 14
Application No. 08/352,513
The appellant argues (brief, p. 9) that
none of the references cited by the Examiner disclose two
elements, such as those claimed, that engage the two side
edges of a sash's peripheral frame at points generally
opposite to each other.
We agree.
The examiner did not respond to this argument in the
answer. While Reynolds would have suggested providing
multiple stop members on the cross members of Purves, there is
no suggestion in the applied prior art to space two of the
stop members apart so that they would have been capable of
engaging two side edges of the peripheral frame of a sash at
points generally opposite each another. Since all the
limitations of claim 13 are not suggested by the applied prior
art, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed with
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007