Appeal No. 2004-1328
Application No. 09/803,360
in the art to utilize such monitoring devices as anti-squeeze devices during the closing
operations of windows. The specification paragraph 9 at page 3 and specification
paragraph 18 at page 5, both state that “an anti-squeeze device, which is known per se”
was only generally mentioned by appellant in the disclosure of his own application. As
noted by the examiner at the bottom of page 7 of the answer, there is no other
explanation of the nature or use of this anti-squeeze device in appellant’s specification
as filed. In any event, based upon the timeframe difference between a publication date
of the reference and the filing of the present application, we consider that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to have employed such an apparently safety-type device for
the user during the closing operations of the window of the vehicles that are clearly
disclosed within the reference relied by the examiner. Obviously, since the anti-
squeeze device was known in the art as admitted by appellant, the use of such device
would have enhanced the safety operation of that system already disclosed in the
German patent relied upon by the examiner.
Since no other claimed feature or claims other than those discussed in this
decision have been argued in the brief and reply brief, we affirm the rejection of claims
1-9 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007