Appeal No. 1999-0611 Page 2
Application No. 08/814,272
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a closure, such as a
roll-up garage door, having a facade of at least one upright
door. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claims 1, 14 and 28, which appear in the
appendix to the appellant's brief.2
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Norberg 2,093,020 Sep. 14,
1937
Fimbell 5,060,711 Oct. 29,
1991
Schlicht et al. (Schlicht) 5,123,211 Jun. 23,
1992
Lewis et al. (Lewis) 5,626,176 May 6,
1997
The following rejections are before us for review.3
2 The copy of claim 29 in the appendix to the appellant's brief contains
a minor error in that the claim of record, in line 3, reads "upwardly" instead
of "outwardly."
3 The examiner's inclusion of claim 24 in rejections 1 through 3, rather
than in rejection 6, and claim 29 in rejection 3 in addition to rejection 6,
appears to have been an inadvertent error, in light of the record as a whole.
Accordingly, in deciding the appeal as to claims 24 and 29, we shall interpret
the rejections thereof as being under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Lewis and not under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The appellant does not appear to be
prejudiced by this interpretation in light of the appellant's grouping of
claims 24 and 29 with claims 11, 13 and 26 (brief, page 5) and argument as to
the non-obviousness of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (brief, pages 9 and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007