Appeal No. 1999-0611 Page 7
Application No. 08/814,272
examiner's rejections of claims 4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over either Fimbell or Norberg.
Further, with regard to rejections 8 and 9, we have
reviewed the teachings of Schlicht but find nothing therein
which overcomes the above-noted deficiencies of Fimbell and
Norberg. Accordingly, we likewise cannot sustain the
examiner's rejections of claims 5, 6, 18 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fimbell or Norberg in
view of Schlicht.
The Lewis Rejections
With regard to rejection 3, the appellant states on page
5 of the brief that claims 1 to 3, 10, 12, 14 to 16, 23, 25,
28 and 30 stand or fall together and claims 7 to 9, 20 to 22
and 27 stand or fall together. Therefore, in accordance with
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we have selected claims 1 and 7 as
the representative claims from these groupings on which to
decide the appeal of this rejection.
Lewis (Figures 5D and 5E) discloses an overhead door,
such as a garage door, comprising a plurality of horizontally
extending panels (170, 172, 174) pivotally connected to each
other by a flexible hinge (92), best seen in Figure 3. Each
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007