Smith Appeal No. 2002-1817 Page 6
Application No. 09/432,862
claim 1, and we will sustain the rejection. Since the appellant has chosen to group
claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9 and 10 with claim 1 (Brief, page 2), the like rejection of these claims
also is sustained.
While we have carefully considered the appellant’s arguments, they have not
persuaded us that this rejection should not stand. It is true that the thermal barrier
insulation denoted by the numeral 58 is not shown in the De La Cerda drawings.
However, because this reference specifically states that the thermal barrier extends
around the peripheral outer edge of the closure for the purpose of improving thermal
efficiency, we nevertheless are of the view that the patent clearly conveys to one of
ordinary skill in the art the advantage of providing a thermal barrier on all four edges of
the pet door movable closure. Furthermore, the appellant’s argument that extending
the seal around the top edge of the closure in the De La Cerda door would render the
closure inoperative because of the construction of the hinge is merely conjecture, and
cannot be accorded such weight as to nullify the explicit statement made that the seal
should be on all edges. In this regard, we further note that the teachings of De La
Cerda are being applied to Smith, which already discloses a seal at the top edge of the
closure panel.
Claims 4 and 8 add to claims 1 and 7, respectively, the requirement that the seal
include deformable double wiper blades contacting the passageway of the support
frame. The examiner has taken the position that in view of the teachings of Ruff, it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007