Appeal No. 2000-0226 Page 7
Application No. 08/694,200
and Reiner (answer, p. 5). Thereafter, the examiner
determined (answer, p. 5) that
[t]o cover the conventional fireplace closure
framework shown in applicant's Fig. 1 with a piece of air
impermeable thin, pliable material such as conventional
polyethylene to further seal the fireplace opening and
hold the pliable material in place by a conventional
securing means such as tape, adhesive or clips would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
especially when viewed with the above prior art [i.e.,
Gallagher, Le Brun, Knudson, Fox and Reiner].
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 8-12) that the applied
prior art does not disclose, teach or suggest the use of a
frameless sheet of thin pliable material positioned across the
means for closing-off the frontal opening of the fireplace
(i.e., the door assembly 11) whereby the natural draft of air
draws the sheet of material against the means for closing-off
the frontal opening. We agree.
Obviousness is tested by what the combined teachings of
the applied prior art would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). But it "cannot be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007