Appeal No. 98-1243
Application No. 08/679,939
coupling that releases its connection in response to the
effect of a force “acting in a direction substantially
parallel” to the tension resisting bar that extends along the
plane of the door, a teaching that is not present in either of
the references. In Mueller, the only reference that utilizes
a rupturable connection, response can be only to a force
transverse to the plane of the door, which is perpendicular to
that required by claim 10.
The examiner bears the burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), which is
established when the teachings of the prior art itself would
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). For the reason stated
above, such is not the case with the two references applied
against claim 10. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 10 as being unpatentable over
Kraeutler and Mueller.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007