Appeal No. 2002-1591
Application No.09/616,503
a surface. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claim 72
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Richter will not be sustained.
Method claim 67 is directed to a method for assembling a
window shutter system wherein a plurality of elongate members and
couplers are joined together to define at least one frame. The
claim then sets forth the step of “attaching at least one hinge
to the frame for mounting the shutter system to a window.” While
the examiner has urged that appellant’s method represents nothing
more than “the obvious method of assembling the Richter et al
device,” we do not agree. In the first place, we again point out
that Richter is directed to panels or frames assembled together
to define a room divider, not a window shutter system, and that
the examiner has never addressed this difference. Moreover,
since Richter is concerned with a room divider, not a window
shutter system, it follows that there is nothing in Richter which
teaches or suggests “attaching at least one hinge to the frame
for mounting the shutter system to a window.” Again we find that
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, and for that reason, will not sustain the rejection
of claim 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). It follows that the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007