Appeal No. 2006-0978 Page 7
Application No. 10/236,087
We turn finally to the rejection of claims 1-19 as being anticipated by Guillemet
‘814. The appellant contends that Guillemet lacks a panel frame of elements, wherein
each element is slidably mounted on a stepped portion of a respective element of a
glazing frame “in friction fit manner” as called for in independent claims 1 and 11 (brief,
pages 9-10). In addressing this limitation, the examiner, referring to the marked-up
reproduction of Figure 3 of Guillemet ‘814 on page 7 of the answer, states:
each said panel frame (12) having an outwardly directed
flange (B1) having a glazing tape for abutting opposite side
of the door, a second portion (B2) being slidably mounted on
the stepped portion (18) of the glazing frame in a frictional fit
manner” [answer, page 6].
The examiner, on page 13 of the answer, adds that
the elongated eng [sic] portion of the step flange being
slidably inserted into and snap engaged with the panel frame
(12) before secured the outer and inner frames (13, 12)
together by securing screw (see Fig. 3). Although Guillemet
does not directly define the panel frame (12) being slidably
mounted to the stepped portion of the glazing frame in “a
friction fit manner'', its [sic] known in the art that when two
elements being “slidable” and then “snap fit'' together, a
suitable friction force will be inherently created between two
slidable and snap engaged surfaces, and therefore includes
a manner of “frication [sic] fit'' as claimed but the two
engaged two [sic] members are not necessary being
frictionally fitted. Therefore, the panel frame (12) of
Guillemet is considered being slidably mounted on the step
flange of the glazing panel (13) in a manner of “frictional fit''
as claimed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007