Appeal No. 2002-1591
Application No.09/616,503
566, 568 (CCPA 1967). Accordingly, we make no further comment
regarding the amendment that was refused entry by the examiner.
Turning to the examiner’s rejection of claims 35 through 40,
42, 44 through 55, 57 and 59 through 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Richter (final rejection, pages 2-3),
we note that the examiner has determined that Richter discloses
all of the elements of appellant’s claims on appeal except for
“the hinge, the connector being made of plastic, and the steps of
the method claim in the order recited.” To account for these
differences, the examiner urges that 1) “it is inherent that the
joint 155 [Fig. 11] permits pivotal movement between the frame
members due to the materials and structures involved;” 2) it
would have been obvious to form the connectors (9) of Richter of
plastic because such “would most efficiently accomplish the goals
of the device;” and 3) with regard to the two steps of method
claim 67, “such would have been the obvious method of assembling
the Richter et al device.”
Unlike appellant’s claimed window shutter system, Richter
addresses a connector assembly arrangement for connecting plastic
pipe sections (2) together in a locked arrangement to define
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007