Ex Parte Chubb

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 12, 2006

10236087 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD A. CHUBB
____________

Appeal No. 2006-0978
Application No. 10/236,087
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before CRAWFORD, BAHR and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's rejection of claims 1-19.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2006-0978 Page 2
Application No. 10/236,087

BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a window frame for a door, a wall of a
refrigerated room or cabinet or the like (present specification, page 1). Independent
claims 1 and 11 are representative of the invention and read as follows.
1. A window frame for a door comprising
a glazing frame of extruded plastic elements, each
said element having a first outwardly directed flange to abut
one side of a door, a second flange and a stepped portion
extending therefrom; and
a panel frame of extruded plastic elements, each said
element of said panel frame having an outwardly directed
flange to abut an opposite side of the door and being slidably
mounted on said stepped portion of a respective element of
said glazing frame in friction fit manner.

11. A window frame for a door comprising
a glazing frame consisting of extruded plastic
elements, each said element having a first outwardly
directed flange to abut one side of a door, a second flange
and a stepped portion extending therefrom;
a panel frame of consisting of extruded plastic
elements, each said element of said panel frame having an
outwardly directed flange to abut an opposite side of the
door and being slidably mounted on said stepped portion of
a respective element of said glazing frame in friction fit
manner;
a window frame abutted against said second flange of
each respective element of said glazing frame; and
a plurality of plastic glazing beads, each said bead
being removably mounted in a respective extruded element
of said glazing frame for holding said window frame between
said second flange of each extruded element of said glazing
frame and said bead.

Appeal No. 2006-0978 Page 3
Application No. 10/236,087

Applied Prior Art

Lewkowitz 3,750,358 Aug. 7, 1973
Guillemet (Guillemet ‘814) 4,996,814 Mar. 5, 1991
Guillemet (Guillemet ‘349) 5,692,349 Dec. 2, 1997

The Rejections
Claims1, 2, 8, 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lewkowitz.
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Guillemet ‘349.
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Guillemet ‘814.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(mailed August 29, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the appellant's brief (filed June 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. As a consequence of our
review, we make the following determinations.
Appeal No. 2006-0978 Page 4
Application No. 10/236,087

We turn first to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 9 and 19 as being anticipated by
Lewkowitz. Lewkowitz discloses a self-locking door light molding comprising an interior
frame member 16, an exterior frame member 18 and lock members 20. The exterior
and interior frame members comprise flange members 46, 46’, locking strips 42, 42’
with teeth 44, 44’ extending from the flanges and positioning strips 48, 48’ also
extending from the flanges parallel to the locking strips. The teeth 44, 44’ of the locking
strips cooperate with the lock members 20 to secure the interior and exterior frame
members about an opening 12 provided in a solid wood or hollow metallic door 14
without the need for nails, screws or other external fastening means.
In reading claim 1 on the Lewkowitz molding, the examiner considers the
stepped portion to read on the positioning strip 48’ in combination with the locking
member 20. As pointed out by the appellant on pages 5 and 6 of the brief, the locking
member 20 is a separate and discrete element from the frame member 16 and the
positioning strip 48’ thereof and thus cannot fairly be considered, along with the
positioning strip 48’, to form a stepped portion of an element of the frame member 16.
In light of the above, the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 8, 9
and 19 depending from claim 1, as being anticipated by Lewkowitz cannot be sustained.
We turn our attention next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-17 as being
anticipated by Guillemet ‘349. In reading claims 1 and 11 on Guillemet ‘349, the
examiner considers main frame member 11, right angle wall section 35, depending wall
Appeal No. 2006-0978 Page 5
Application No. 10/236,087

30 and side jamb section 15 to respond to the glazing frame, first flange, second flange
and stepped portion, respectively, of claims 1 and 11. Further, according to the
examiner, the inner casing connecting frame molding 12 responds to the panel frame of
claims 1 and 11, with the connection web 27 thereof “being slidably mounted on the
stepped portion (15) of the glazing frame in a snap-fit engagement which is considered
to be in a frictional fit as claimed” (answer, page 5).
The appellant argues that (1) the jamb section 15 is within the main frame
member 11 and thus does not extend from the main frame member as required by
claims 1 and 11 (brief, page 7) and (2) the snap retention of the connecting web 27
within the slot 21 of the jamb section 15 by retention rib 24 is not a friction fit, as called
for in claims 1 and 11 (brief, page 8). We agree with the appellant on both points.
As for the first argument, the jamb section 15 extends between two features, the
first flange (right angle wall section 35) and second flange (depending wall 30), of each
element and thus extends within the element. As such, the jamb section 15 cannot
reasonably be considered to be extending from an element having a first flange and a
second flange as called for in claims 1 and 11.
With regard to the appellant’s second argument, we note that Guillemet ‘349
discloses connecting slots 21 and 21’ have a beveled edge at their outer longitudinal
edges 23 to facilitate connection with the inner casing connecting frame molding 12 or
outer sash connecting frame molding 13 and are further provided with “a retention rib 24
Appeal No. 2006-0978 Page 6
Application No. 10/236,087

[or 24’] having a right angle undercut for snap retention over a right-angle ledge 25 [or
25’] formed on a flat outer face 26 in a top end of a connecting web 27 [or 27’] of the
inner casing connecting frame molding 12 [or outer sash connecting frame molding 13]”
(column 2, last paragraph). While there may be a friction fit arrangement between the
connecting web 27 and the slot 21, Guillemet ‘349 does not explicitly disclose one or
give any indication that such an arrangement is necessarily present and the undercut
snap retention arrangement in no way implies or necessitates a friction fit arrangement
between the slot 21 (or jamb section 15) and the connecting web 27.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under principles of inherency, when a reference is
silent about an asserted inherent characteristic, it must be clear that the missing
descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that
it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto
Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991). For the reasons
discussed above, we conclude that Guillemet ‘349 does not disclose, expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of claims 1 and 11. Accordingly,
the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, and claims 2-10 and 12-17 depending
therefrom, cannot be sustained.
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.

Appeal No. 2006-0978 Page 8
Application No. 10/236,087

The examiner’s findings with regard to the portion identified by the examiner as
B2 being slidably mounted on the stepped portion or step flange 18 in a frictional fit
manner and the elongated end portion of the step flange 18 being slidably inserted into
and snap engaged with the panel frame (inner frame member) 12 before the frames 12,
13 are secured together by securing screws 16 are not supported by the reference. The
only means of securement of the panels disclosed by Guillemet ‘814 are the screws 16.
In light of the above, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and
11, and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, as being anticipated by Guillemet ‘814.
Appeal No. 2006-0978 Page 9
Application No. 10/236,087

CONCLUSION
To summarize, none of the examiner’s rejections is sustained. The decision of
the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JENNIFER D. BAHR ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2006-0978 Page 10
Application No. 10/236,087

CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN,
CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN
6 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068

M/BM TEAM

APPEAL NO. 2006-0978
APPLICATION NO. 10/236,087

Copies:

______ APJ BAHR

______ APJ LEVY

______ APJ CRAWFORD

DECISION: REVERSED

PREPARED: Aug 30, 2006

2 Person Conf. ___ Onbrief PALM:

3 Person Conf. ___ Onbrief ACTS:

3 Person Conf. ___ Heard DISK (FOIA):

ELPH:

BOOK:

GAU:

44C2:

IFW in Mail Room: