Appeal No. 1999-0636 Page 13
Application No. 08/828,375
by movement of the gate to warn of actual or attempted
unauthorized access to the opening sought to be closed by the
gate.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner's 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claim 25 as being unpatentable over Martinek
in view of La Mell. As the appellant has conceded that the
additional limitations recited in claims 7 and 8 which depend
from claim 25 are disclosed by Martinek (see brief, page 17),
it follows that we shall also sustain the examiner's rejection
of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Martinek in view of La Mell.
As to claim 10, we find that the "housing means" of
Martinek, as perhaps best illustrated in Figures 1, 3 and 6,
is mounted on the structure (10), which is disclosed by
Martinek as being "a wall, jamb, partition or other surface"
(page 1, lines 46 and 47). We consider the wall or other
surface (10) to be a "finished surface" as claimed.
Accordingly, we shall also sustain the examiner's rejection of
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Martinek in view of La Mell.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007