Appeal No. 2002-1591
Application No.09/616,503
40-47). Such double claw clips (un-numbered) appear to be shown
in Figures 1 and 2 of Richter adjacent the connector fitting
assemblies (5) at the upper and lower corners of adjacent frames
(3). As urged by appellant in both the brief and reply brief, it
is immediately apparent that the double claw clip (155) of
Richter is not a “hinge” which is “operable to connect one of the
elongate members to a window frame,” as required in claim 35 on
appeal. Moreover, we agree with appellant that it would not have
been obvious to modify the double claw clip (155) to do so. For
those reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Richter. It follows
that the examiner’s rejection of claims 36 through 40, 42 and 44
through 49, which depend from claim 35, will also not be
sustained.
Appellant’s independent claim 50 requires “at least one
hinge operable to couple an elongate member to a window frame”
and “at least one joint operable to hingedly connect the
plurality of frames.” Even if we were to agree with the examiner
that the double claw clips (155) of Richter provide a hinge or
joint operable to hingedly connect the plurality of frames
together, we remain of the view expressed above in our treatment
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007