Appeal No. 2004-0053 Page 8
Application No. 09/678,635
door without jar or shock; and (2) to provide means whereby the door, when so
required, may be retained in an open position and readily disengaged therefrom.
To this end Frisbie's invention consists of two parts as shown in Figures 1-7. The
first part includes (1) a metal thimble 1 secured by screws 4 to a door 3, and (2) a
rubber tip 2 placed within the metal thimble 1. The second part is a check or holding
stud 5 secured to a base-board 6 by means of a central screw 7. The stud 5 has an
acorn-shaped head 8; a reduced portion or neck 9 with which a lip 10 of the rubber tip 2
engages to hold the door open; and a neck 12.
The examiner states (answer, pp. 6-7) that the claimed functional recitations
regarding the blind structure (e.g., the lead carrier) are met by (i.e., readable on) Frisbie
since Frisbie is capable of being used in the claimed manner.
The appellant argues that the claims are limited to the window covering
environment and that the claimed functional recitations are not met by Frisbie.
In our view, independent claim 10 is not readable on Frisbie. In that regard,
Frisbie's check or holding stud 5 (which the examiner equates to the claimed
engagement structure) does not have a lateral slot capable of fitting over an upper
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007