Appeal No. 1999-2832 Page 6
Application No. 08/816,559
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Upon our evaluation of all the evidence before us (i.e.,
the applied prior art), it is our conclusion that the evidence
adduced by the examiner is insufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims under
appeal. Specifically, claim 9 includes the following
limitations:
a freewheel mounted on the first end of the spindle so as
to enable the spindle to rotate when the at least one
door leaf is moving in a closing direction thereof, the
freewheel having a component which is stationary relative
to but capable of rotating together with the spindle, and
a releasable device selected from the group comprising a
brake and a clutch configured to prevent rotation of the
component of the freewheel.
The above-quoted limitations are not suggested by the
applied prior art. In that regard, we have reviewed all the
teachings of the applied prior art and fail to find any
teaching whatsoever of a freewheel, let alone a suggestion
that would have led an artisan to have modified the primary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007