Appeal No. 2006-0128
Application No. 10/003,353
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary with regard to the
above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by appellants and the
examiner regarding that rejection, we make reference to the answer (mailed May 18,
2005) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief
(filed February 25, 2005), reply brief (filed June 10, 2005) and corrected brief (also filed
June 10, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
In rejecting claims 1 through 9, 14 and 31 through 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
examiner has determined that Kennedy discloses a mine door installation in a
passageway of a mine, comprising a doorway frame in the mine passageway including
columns (43) yieldable to accommodate convergence without permanent deformation,
said doorway frame supporting a mine door leaf (27 or 29) mounted on hinges (115,
117) for swinging between open and closed positions, the door leaf being constructed of
sheet metal and having at least four reinforced edges, with the doorway frame directly
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007