Appeal No. 2002-1119
Application 09/455,064
pane is closed and the keys or other means of releasing the locks
are not available. Independent claim 3 is representative of the
subject matter on appeal and a copy of that claim may be found in
the Appendix to appellant’s brief.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Konopacki 3,438,290 Apr. 15, 1969
Fenner 4,706,525 Nov. 17, 1987
Weinraub 4,836,061 Jun. 6, 1989
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Konopacki in view of Fenner.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Konopacki in view of Fenner and Weinraub.1
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 15, mailed January 10, 2002) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007