Appeal No. 2006-0128
Application No. 10/003,353
supporting two of the edges when the door is in the closed position and another two
edges being substantially free of direct support. What Kennedy does not show or
disclose relative to appellants’ claimed subject matter is a door leaf having a central
core of a solidified composition (e.g., fire-resistant polyurethane foam material) and
outer metal panels on opposite faces of such a core, wherein the core has a force-
transmitting relationship with the panels constituting the panels and core as an integral
stress-resistant structure resistant to stresses to which the door leaf is subjected in a
mine.
To address such deficiencies in Kennedy, the examiner turns to Zen, noting that this
patent discloses a steel clad door leaf (1) comprising a reinforcing frame (2), a central
core (4) formed of a solidified, fire-resistant polyurethane foam material, and outer steel
cladding panels (3) on opposite faces of the core, wherein the core has a force-
transmitting relationship with the panels constituting the panels and core as an integral
stress-resistant structure that is extremely strong, yet can be produced at very low cost.
The examiner also notes that the frame structure (2) of Zen includes integrally molded
bracing or rebar-type elements (12) that provide at least indirect mechanical coupling of
the core material to the steel cladding panels (3). In the examiner’s view, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention to
replace the door panels (27, 29) of Kennedy’s mine door system with metal clad door
panels like those in Zen. The examiner considers that it would have been within the skill
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007