Appeal No. 1999-0635 13
Application No. 08/688,825
As discussed above, Hutchinson does not teach and would
not have suggested provision of the mesh material (7) as a
free standing structure for use as a barrier to intruders and,
in fact, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art that the disclosed mesh material (7) would not have been
sufficient, alone, as a barrier. Thus, we cannot agree with
the examiner that it would have been obvious, in view of the
combined teachings of Warfel and Hutchinson, to provide the
reeled wire mesh material (7) of Warfel in lieu of the
slidable panel arrangement disclosed by Warfel.
Moreover, even assuming that Warfel and Hutchinson would
have suggested modification of the Warfel barrier by
attachment of the reeled wire mesh material (7) taught by
Hutchinson to the frames of the barrier as an auxiliary guard,
such an arrangement would still not result in 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.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007