Appeal No. 1999-2369
Application 08/674,911
In rejecting claims 1 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
the examiner has found (see page 3 in the answer) that
Passovoy’s top and side metal extrusions meet the claim
limitations relating to the elongate extruded metal structures
having cavities therein and that Passovoy’s building wall 16
meets the claim limitations relating to the substrates
received in the cavities. The examiner explains with respect
to the substrate limitations that “[t]he applicant has not
provided language in the claims to suggest the ‘substrates’ as
not being part of a wall or a separate entity from a building”
(answer, page 6).
As indicated above, however, claims 1 and 24 do contain
language distinguishing the substrates from building members
which define a door opening. Given the distinctions drawn by
the claims between the substrates and such building members, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not view Passovoy’s
building wall 16 as meeting the substrate limitations. Since
Passovoy
does not disclose any other structure meeting these
limitations, the examiner’s determination that it constitutes
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007