Smith Appeal No. 2002-1817 Page 5
Application No. 09/432,862
Smith discloses a pet door having a movable closure 10 that swings from a pivot
axle 33, in the same manner as the closure recited in claim 1. The closure comprises a
pair of spaced panels 29 and 30. While the closure is provided with a weather strip 40
engaging the top portion of the frame within which the closure is mounted, such is not
disclosed on the sides or the bottom of the closure. Thus, Smith fails to teach providing
a seal on the bottom and side edges of the closure. Nor does Smith disclose insulation
between the spaced panels of the closure.
The pet door disclosed by De La Cerda has spaced apart panels between which
insulation 52 is installed (Figure 5). The reference goes on to state that “[in] order to
provide further thermal efficiency, a thermal barrier 58, “formed of for example nylon
pile, extends about the peripheral outer edge of the pet door 8" (column 4, lines 20-22;
emphasis added). Considering nylon pile to be “resiliently flexible,” we agree with the
examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the explicitly
stated teaching of De La Cerda that equipping a swinging pet door with a resiliently
flexible seal along its peripheral outer edge, that is, its top, bottom and side edges,
would provide the advantage of improving the thermal efficiency of the closure. We
further agree that in view of the teaching of De La Cerda it would have been obvious to
provide insulation between the panels of the Smith pet door.
It therefore is our opinion that the combined teachings of Smith and De La Cerda
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007