Appeal No. 2004-2256
Application 10/042,738
For these reasons, we cannot sustain the § 103
rejection of claims 13-17 for being obvious over Hopper in view
of Suh as expressed by the examiner in the final Office action or
for being obvious over Suh in view of Hopper as expressed by the
examiner in the Answer.
REMAND FOR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER ISSUES
Upon return of this application to the jurisdiction of
the Examining Corps, the examiner and the appellant should
consider and address the issue of whether the window frame of
claim 13 is distinguishable from the window frame of Suh’s figure
8 embodiment.2
Specifically, the window frame embodiment shown in
figure 8 comprises a first frame half 130 including a plurality
of posts 162 with ridges 163 and a second frame half 140
including a plurality of bores 165 with ridges 169. These frame
2 It is appropriate to here emphasize that the examiner’s
expositions in the final Office action and in the Answer
concerning his § 103 rejection do not include a discussion of
Suh’s figure 8 disclosure (indeed, the exposition in the Answer
refers only to figures 9 and 10 of Suh; e.g., see the last full
paragraph on page 4) and do not address the issue of whether
claim 13 is anticipated by any of Suh’s window frame embodiments.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007