Appeal No. 1999-2733
Application 08/230,634
an opening. According to claim 70, the only independent claim on appeal, the closure assembly
comprises a flexible perforated sheet that is movable from a retracted position to an extended
position extending across the opening. Claim 70 additionally recites that, in addition to being
perforated, the flexible sheet has “a permanent memory set to gather itself automatically into a
compact configuration proximate to [the] rear end edge [of the sheet].” According to
dependent claim 71, the perforated sheet is a screen or a woven article. According to
dependent claim 72 the compact configuration of the perforated sheet comprises a coil.
A copy of the appealed claims is appended to appellant’s brief.
The following references are relied upon by the examiner in support of his rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Renton 2,584,369 Feb. 5, 1952
Taber 3,195,616 July 20, 1965
Smith 5,123,474 June 23, 1992
The grounds of rejection are as follows:
1. Claims 70-73 and 77-80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Renton.
2. Claims 74 and 75 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Renton in view of Taber.
3. Claim 76 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Renton
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007