Appeal No. 1999-0635 7
Application No. 08/688,825
claim was held to be limited to a method for transmitting
packets having both source and destination addresses.).
For the above reasons, we interpret claim 5 as being
directed to a combination of an extensible doorway barrier and
a door mounted to a door frame. This is consistent with the
appellant's arguments in the brief, which read as follows:
Hutchinson, Christison, and Warfel do not suggest a
flexible material structure which spans a lower
portion of an otherwise unobstructed opening of a
door . . . while leaving an upper portion of the
opening unobstructed to allow deliveries. None of
these references suggests a device where the
flexible material is paid out as the door is opened
and rewound as the door is closed [brief, page 12].
[T]here is no suggestion in any reference of
mounting a reel and attachment on the opening side
of the door frame so that the material spans the
door opening, rather than the door itself as taught
by Hutchinson. For these reasons, the proposed
combinations ultimately fail to create a structure
similar to that of the amended claims [brief, pages
13 and 14].4
That claims 9 and 15, the remaining independent claims on
appeal, are also directed to the combination of a door mounted
The appellant expressly indicates that these arguments apply to4
independent claim 5, as well as to independent claims 9 and 15 (brief, page
23).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007