Appeal No. 1997-0276
Application No. 08/357,641
section would be transported into the interior of
the trailer through the gap 80 when the expandable
section was retracted into the body (Mattice, column
10, lines 19 through 28).
Thus, Mattice recognizes the problem that appellants'
invention is intented to solve. However, we further note that
Mattice does not show any fenestration in the extendable slide
out unit. The other reference applied against claim 1, that
of the Canadian patent to Collins, shows a typical window
awning retractable on a roller and supported by side arms 2
and 3 and held in lower position by a tension cord 25. The
examiner concludes "it would have been obvious to provide in
Mattice a window in order to illuminate and ventilate the
interior" and to provide this window with an awning as shown
by Collins.
It is our view that there is no suggestion in the prior
art of Mattice and Collins that would have rendered the
subject matter of claim 1 prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill. Assuming arguendo that it would have been
obvious, as the examiner states, to have provided a window in
the extendable section of Mattice, the suggestion of Collins
would be to provide an awning for the window alone. Following
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007