Appeal No. 2001-1682
Application No. 08/837,668
We look first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4
through 9, 11 through 14 and 17 through 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rice '140 in view of Ludwig.
In considering Rice '140, the examiner has pointed to Figure 6
and urged that this embodiment of the patent discloses a door
security device including a support bar (20), a blocking means
(30), an attaching means (52), receiving means (60, 62), and an
actuator. What is said to be lacking in Rice '140 is that it
does not specifically teach that the receiving means (60, 62)
therein are fastened using chemical bonding means, as required in
appellant's claims on appeal. To address this deficiency in Rice
'140, the examiner turns to Ludwig, urging that Ludwig teaches an
adhesive (42) for securing an item to another structure in an
impenetrable manner using a chemical bonding means to increase
the ease of installation. Based on the combined teachings of the
applied patents, the examiner concludes (Paper No. 19, page 3)
that "it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to
provide Rice ['140] with an adhesive as an alternative fastening
structure as taught by Ludwig."
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the receiving means (60)
of Rice '140 seen in Figure 6 is not disclosed as comprising "a
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007