Appeal No. 1999-2369
Application 08/674,911
an anticipatory reference with respect to the subject matter
recited in claims 1 and 24 is unsound.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 24, or of dependent claims
2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 25, 30, 31 and 43, as being anticipated by
Passovoy.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3 through 6, 9,
26 through 29 and 44 as being unpatentable over Passovoy and
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 13, 15, 33 and 35
as being unpatentable over Passovoy and Fast
In addition to not disclosing a door frame kit or
assembly comprising substrates of the type recited in
independent claims 1 and 24, Passovoy also would not have
suggested same to one of ordinary skill in the art. Fast’s
disclosure of a window frame having a hinged nailing strip
does not cure this deficiency.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 3 through 6, 9, 26
through 29 and 44 as being unpatentable over Passovoy or the
standing 35
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007