Appeal No. 1999-0635 2
Application No. 08/688,825
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an extensible door
barrier in combination with a door. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 5,
which appears in the opinion section of this decision.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Pyle 671,414 Apr. 2, 1901
Warfel 1,204,833 Nov. 14, 1916
Hutchinson, Jr. (Hutchinson) 1,716,060 Jun. 4,
1929
Christison 2,455,112 Nov. 30, 1948
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 5, 7-15 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Christison in view of
Hutchinson.
(...continued)2
the amendment was entered, pursuant to the appellant's request to do so on
page 2 of the "Request for File Wrapper Continuing Application under 37 CFR §
1.62" filed July 31, 1996. In any event, based on the examiner's answer (page
3) and the appendix to the reply brief filed April 17, 1998 (Paper No. 30),
there is no dispute as to the claims involved in this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007