Appeal No. 1999-0635 11
Application No. 08/688,825
arrangement, because of the presence of the extensible gate in
addition to the mesh guard, would not result in the flexible
material means "spanning a lower portion of the otherwise
unobstructed opening of said door to provide a visual barrier
deterring egress of pets or small children while leaving an
upper portion of the opening unobstructed" as required by the
claims.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 5, 7-15 and 17-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Christison in view of
Hutchinson.
We have reviewed the teachings of Pyle, but we find
nothing therein which overcomes the above-noted deficiencies
of the combination of Christison and Hutchinson. It follows
then that we shall also not sustain the examiner's 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claims 2 and 16 as being unpatentable over
Christison in view of Hutchinson and Pyle.
Turning now to the examiner's rejection of claims 5, 7-15
and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Warfel in view of Hutchinson, Warfel discloses a door screen
adapted to be applied to a door for holding the door open for
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007