Appeal No. 2002-1591
Application No.09/616,503
manual or "template" in attempting to piece together isolated
disclosures and teachings of the prior art so that the claimed
invention is rendered obvious.
Moreover, even if such a substitution of coupling components
were to be made, we do not see how this combination would result
in the particular subject matter which is claimed by appellant in
claims 48 and 65. Nor has the examiner provided any explanation
of how one would arrive at the specific subject matter defined in
claims 48 and 65 on appeal. Claims 48 and 65 are directed to a
“hinge” of the type set forth in claim 1 or claim 50 on appeal as
being operable to connect or couple an elongate member of a
window shutter system to a window frame, and defines that hinge
as further including “a hinge post and a wall mount.” The
examiner has simply not addressed the express limitations of
dependent claims 48 and 65 specifically. Accordingly, we find
that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness, and for that reason, will not sustain the rejection
of claims 48 and 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the
combined teachings of Turner ‘858 and Richter.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007