Appeal No. 1999-0636 Page 15
Application No. 08/828,375
In rejecting claims 25 and 9, the examiner recognizes
that Johnston does not disclose a closure height of "less than
approximately 50 inches" or an alarm as required by the
claims. However, the examiner asserts that the specific
height of the gate is merely an obvious matter of design
choice and that it would have been obvious to provide an alarm
on the Johnston closure in view of the teachings of La Mell.
As to the height of the closure, we agree with the
examiner that the particular dimensions of the closure would
have been an obvious matter of design choice within the skill
of the art. As noted above, the appellant has not alleged or
shown that the claimed height solves any stated problem. One
of ordinary skill in the art having read the Johnston
disclosure would have selected dimensions appropriate for the
particular doorway or other opening sought to be closed.
We have considered the appellant's arguments bridging
pages 18 and 19 of the brief that La Mell would not have
suggested providing an alarm, activated by movement of the
closure material, on the Johnston closure structure, but we do
not find them persuasive. La Mell clearly teaches the
desirability of providing an alarm on a movable barrier
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007