Appeal 2006-1417
Application 09/326,405
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability, as well as the declaration evidence relied upon in support
thereof. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s factual determination that
Kehne, like Appellant, discloses an operable window system comprising a
fixed frame, a moving sash operable to substantially swing about an axis
with respect to the fixed frame from an open position to a closed position,
and a screen that is mounted between the fixed frame and the moving sash.
As recognized by the Examiner, Kehne does not disclose that the screen is
connected to the fixed frame with hook and loop fasteners. However, as
explained by the Examiner, Lazarek discloses a removable window screen
that is attached to the window’s fixed frame with hook and loop fasteners
which provide easy and quick mounting and dismounting of the screen.
Accordingly, based on the collective teachings of Kehne and Lazarek, we
concur with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to employ the hook and loop fasteners of Lazarek in
the window system of Kehne to provide the described advantage of enabling
the screen to be readily mounted and dismounted. We also find that one of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007