Appeal No. 2006-1748 Παγε 2
Application No. 10/728,375
The appellant's invention relates to a device for opening a stiff or frozen door
(specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to
the appellant's brief.
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Moses D164,705 Oct. 2, 1951
Sutton 4,788,893 Dec. 6, 1988
Thomas et al. (Thomas) 5,337,632 Aug. 16, 1994
Waddell D442,840 May 29, 2001
Crowley 6,799,491 Oct. 5, 2004
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 to 8, 12, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sutton in view of Thomas.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Sutton and Thomas and further in view of Crowley, Moses or Waddell.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the non-final
rejection (mailed February 8, 2005) and the answer (mailed August 22, 2005) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (filed May
19, 2005) and reply brief (filed November 21, 2005) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007