Appeal No. 1997-2781 Page 6
Application No. 08/422,348
McDonald’s closure door 10 is intended to block entry of
outside air to provide protection against cold and inclement
weather. In our viewpoint, one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been motivated to modify McDonald’s exterior
closure door 10 in such a way to defeat the basic purpose of
the door. See Ex parte Hartmann, 186 USPQ 366, 367 (Bd. App.
1974) and Ex parte Thompson, 184 USPQ 558, 559 (Bd. App. 1974).
The prior art relied upon by the examiner thus fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter of claims 1 through 4, 7, 9 through 12, 14
through 16 and 18. We therefore must reverse the § 103
rejection of these claims. We also must reverse the § 103
rejections of claims 5, 6 and 8 since the Beers and Crescentini
references do not rectify the shortcomings of McDonald and
Stevens.
In summary, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1
through 12, 14 through 16 and 18 is reversed, and the appeal as
to claims 13 and 17 is dismissed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007