Appeal No. 2006-0978 Page 5
Application No. 10/236,087
30 and side jamb section 15 to respond to the glazing frame, first flange, second flange
and stepped portion, respectively, of claims 1 and 11. Further, according to the
examiner, the inner casing connecting frame molding 12 responds to the panel frame of
claims 1 and 11, with the connection web 27 thereof “being slidably mounted on the
stepped portion (15) of the glazing frame in a snap-fit engagement which is considered
to be in a frictional fit as claimed” (answer, page 5).
The appellant argues that (1) the jamb section 15 is within the main frame
member 11 and thus does not extend from the main frame member as required by
claims 1 and 11 (brief, page 7) and (2) the snap retention of the connecting web 27
within the slot 21 of the jamb section 15 by retention rib 24 is not a friction fit, as called
for in claims 1 and 11 (brief, page 8). We agree with the appellant on both points.
As for the first argument, the jamb section 15 extends between two features, the
first flange (right angle wall section 35) and second flange (depending wall 30), of each
element and thus extends within the element. As such, the jamb section 15 cannot
reasonably be considered to be extending from an element having a first flange and a
second flange as called for in claims 1 and 11.
With regard to the appellant’s second argument, we note that Guillemet ‘349
discloses connecting slots 21 and 21’ have a beveled edge at their outer longitudinal
edges 23 to facilitate connection with the inner casing connecting frame molding 12 or
outer sash connecting frame molding 13 and are further provided with “a retention rib 24
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007