Appeal No. 2006-0128
Application No. 10/003,353
Zen’s door to broadly constitute “rebar-type elements” (claim 34) that contribute to the
above-noted indirect mechanical coupling of the core to the cladding panels.
Contrary to appellants’ assertions in the brief, we find that there is a “reasonable”
expectation of success in modifying the door system of Kennedy in view of Zen as
noted above. Like the examiner, we observe that the claims on appeal do not set forth
a specific level of forces or stresses to which a mine door may be subjected. Moreover,
in our opinion, the steel clad door of Zen would have been readily recognized by one of
ordinary skill in the art as a rigid integral structure capable of being “resistant to”
stresses to which a door leaf is subjected in a mine, which is all that the claims on
appeal require. Appellants have provided no evidence to the contrary.
In light of the foregoing, we have found appellants’ arguments as presented in the
brief, the reply brief, and corrected brief to be unpersuasive of error on the examiner’s
part and thus will sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 9, 14 and 31 through 45
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Since the obviousness rejection before us on appeal has been sustained, it follows
that the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007