Appeal No. 2006-0978 Page 4
Application No. 10/236,087
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 9 and 19 as being anticipated by
Lewkowitz. Lewkowitz discloses a self-locking door light molding comprising an interior
frame member 16, an exterior frame member 18 and lock members 20. The exterior
and interior frame members comprise flange members 46, 46’, locking strips 42, 42’
with teeth 44, 44’ extending from the flanges and positioning strips 48, 48’ also
extending from the flanges parallel to the locking strips. The teeth 44, 44’ of the locking
strips cooperate with the lock members 20 to secure the interior and exterior frame
members about an opening 12 provided in a solid wood or hollow metallic door 14
without the need for nails, screws or other external fastening means.
In reading claim 1 on the Lewkowitz molding, the examiner considers the
stepped portion to read on the positioning strip 48’ in combination with the locking
member 20. As pointed out by the appellant on pages 5 and 6 of the brief, the locking
member 20 is a separate and discrete element from the frame member 16 and the
positioning strip 48’ thereof and thus cannot fairly be considered, along with the
positioning strip 48’, to form a stepped portion of an element of the frame member 16.
In light of the above, the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 8, 9
and 19 depending from claim 1, as being anticipated by Lewkowitz cannot be sustained.
We turn our attention next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-17 as being
anticipated by Guillemet ‘349. In reading claims 1 and 11 on Guillemet ‘349, the
examiner considers main frame member 11, right angle wall section 35, depending wall
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007