Appeal No. 2002-1119
Application 09/455,064
loop is snug about the knob (90). Continued retraction of wires
(18) and (20) via handles (60, 62) will elevate the knob (90) to
unlock the door.
The examiner has determined that the difference between that
which is shown in Konopacki and the subject matter defined in
claim 3 on appeal is that Konopacki does not have the recited
“window frame” configuration, and more specifically that it does
not have the particular door, door seal weatherstrip and window
frame arrangement set forth in claim 3, lines 4-8. To account
for these differences, the examiner has turned to Fenner, urging
(answer, page 4) that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention
“to have provided the invention of Konopacki with a door seal
weatherstrip in a door frame engaging the door perimeter when the
door is closed and a window frame surrounding a window pane, in
light of the teachings of Fenner, since it is well known in the
art that cars have the claimed window frames.” The examiner then
urges that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007