Appeal No. 2004-2256
Application 10/042,738
once they have become interconnectingly engaged (even at the
initial stage) with the corresponding barbs of connection
member 80.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 9-12 as being
anticipated by Hopper.
We also cannot sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claims 13-17 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings
of the here applied references. Regardless of whether the
examiner proposes to modify Hopper in view of Suh as in the final
Office action or Suh in view of Hopper as in the Answer, the
combined reference teachings simply would not have suggested the
modifications which the examiner has proposed to thereby result
in the window frame defined by appealed independent claim 13.
More specifically, on page 3 of the final Office
action, the examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hopper
with a barbs [sic], as taught by Suh, to provide a more secure
attachment of the first and second frame halves.” It is
indisputable, however, that the window frame of Hopper already
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007