Smith Appeal No. 2002-1817 Page 7
Application No. 09/432,862
would have been obvious to utilize such a seal in the modified Smith door (Paper No. 2,
page 4). We agree.
Ruff discloses a weather sealing assembly for doors which comprises
deformable double wiper blades 25 and 26 mounted on an edge of the door. The
blades are “relatively pliable” and make “sealing contact” with the threshold 40 of the
door frame (column 3, lines 20-22; Figures 2 and 3). The patent explains that this
arrangement “was found to resist penetration of water and the passage of air” when
subjected to a wind of 33.8 mph with water being applied to the door at a rate of 5
gal/hr/sq. ft of door for 15 minutes (column 3, line 31 et seq.). From our perspective,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have learned from Ruff that a double wiper blade
seal offers the advantage of a high resistance to the penetration of water and air. This
being the case, it is our opinion that it would have been obvious to provide the modified
Smith pet door with such a seal. We therefore conclude that the combined teachings of
Smith, De La Cerda and Ruff establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the subject matter recited in claims 4 and 8, and we will sustain the rejection of these
two claims.
We acknowledge that the advantage of the double wiper blade seal that is stated
in Ruff is not the same as that for which the appellant has employed it. However, prior
art teachings relied upon need not disclose the same advantage that the appellant
alleges, for all that is required is that there is a reasonable suggestion to combine the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007