Appeal No. 2006-1308
Application No. 10/269,974
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-7, 10-15 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lamb in view of Thwaites.
Claims 8, 9, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lamb in view of Thwaites and further in view of Urdaneta.
Rather than reiterate in their entirety the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed October 4, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections and to the appellant's brief (filed September 1, 2005)
and reply brief (filed November 15, 2005) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons
that follow, we conclude that the applied prior art is not sufficient to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter recited in appellant’s claims
and that, accordingly, the rejections cannot be sustained.
Each of appellant’s independent claims 1, 10 and 19 requires a self-closing
vent including a screen coated with an intumescent material that closes the screen
when subjected to the heat produced by an external fire, the vent being mounted on
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007