Appeal No. 2006-1325
Application No. 10/163,610
1 3, 5 and 8, Kelley’s wiring extends through and within the frame during at
2 least a portion of its run, for example, through the waistline chase 106.
3 Kelley therefore meets the “utilities extending through said frame” limitation
4 of claim 27.
5 Appellants’ argument that Kelley fails to teach or suggest an
6 insulation panel attached to the frame substantially opposite a replaceable
7 façade (Br. 10), as recited in claim 27, is not well taken. While insulation
8 48c is disposed within one outsert 48, another replaceable outsert 48 is
9 attached to the frame substantially opposite the insulation 48c.
10 In light of the above, Appellants’ arguments fail to demonstrate error
11 on the part of the examiner in rejecting claim 27 as being anticipated by
12 Kelley. The rejection of claim 27, as well as claims 28 and 31 which
13 Appellants have not argued separately apart from claim 27, is sustained.
14 The Examiner contends that claim 32 does not recite any method step
15 and improperly treats claim 32, as well as claims 33 and 34 depending from
16 claim 32, as article claims (Answer 10). Claim 32 recites a method of
17 modifying a hotel room, resort, hospital, apartment building or residential
18 structure comprising a step of installing a prefabricated barrier. Claims 32-
19 34 are therefore clearly method claims. Moreover, the preamble language
20 “of modifying a hotel room, resort, hospital, apartment building or
21 residential structure” is not just intended use. Rather, this language defines
22 the environment in which the method is performed and, thus, gives life and
23 meaning to claims 32-34.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013