Appeal No. 2001-1682
Application No. 08/837,668
assembly (500) of the invention to a wooden or wooden core door
without compromising the fire-rating of the door. A correct copy
of independent claims 1 and 14 on appeal can be found in Paper
No. 12, filed August 6, 1999, and in the Appendix to the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 23, mailed December 19, 2000).
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Bursk 4,644,696 Feb. 24, 1987
Rice 5,364,140 Nov. 15, 1994
Ludwig 5,441,224 Aug. 15, 1995
Claims 1, 4 through 9, 11 through 14 and 17 through 22 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rice
'140 in view of Ludwig.
Claims 1 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bursk in view of Rice '140 and Ludwig.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's entire statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the Office action mailed June 16, 2000 (Paper No.
22
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007