Appeal No. 1999-0635 3
Application No. 08/688,825
2. Claims 2 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Christison in view of Hutchinson, as
applied above, and further in view of Pyle.
3. Claims 5, 7-15 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Warfel in view of
Hutchinson.
4. Claims 2 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Warfel in view of Hutchinson, as
applied above, and further in view of Pyle.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 28) and reply
brief (Paper No. 30) and the answer (Paper No. 29) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims , to the applied prior art references, and to the3
3In claims 9 and 15, the "opening of said door" (emphasis added) lacks
clear antecedent basis. Specifically, the claims recite an opening "between
the door and the door frame" and not an opening "of said door." While this
informality does not render the claims indefinite, it is deserving of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007