Appeal No. 1999-0611 Page 12
Application No. 08/814,272
in the art designing door panels of the type disclosed by
Lewis.
For the above reasons, we shall sustain the examiner's
rejection of claim 13, and of claims 11, 24, 26 and 29 which
stand or fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lewis.
Turning finally to rejection 7, the appellant states that
claims 5, 6, 18 and 19 stand or fall together (brief, page 5).
Therefore, and in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we
have selected claim 18 as the representative claim to decide
the appeal of this rejection.
We agree with the examiner's position that it would have
been obvious to provide arched windows on the Lewis garage
door in view of the teachings of Schlicht. Schlicht teaches
"[l]ites are conventionally provided in exterior doors to
admit [light] and to allow the persons within the building to
observe the exterior" (column 1, lines 9 to 11). Schlicht
further teaches that complex decorative configurations for the
"lites" are frequently desirable (column 1, lines 16 to 20).
To achieve these objectives in a manner that does not require
formation of complex recesses in the door, Schlicht discloses
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007