Appeal No. 1997-0276
Application No. 08/357,641
this teaching, the invention suggested by the combined
disclosures would have been a roll-out cover on top of the
slide out unit as in Mattice and another window awning that
would roll down to shade the window as in Collins. We do not
see in these combined references, a teaching of using a single
awning roller to accomplish these two functions. In other
words, the prior art teaches two-roller mounted covers to
perform the two functions. The additional teachings of Sweeny
and Watson do nothing to overcome or provide for the
deficiencies of the basic combination of Mattice and Collins
discussed above. Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of
claims 1 through 7 cannot be sustained.
With respect to independent claim 8, while this claim
does not require a window in the slide-out unit, the same
basic combination of references is made by the examiner, along
with the added teachings of Watson and Sweeney. Here again,
it is our opinion that the examiner's combination of
references with respect to claim 8 is premised on
impermissable hindsight. In our view, there is simply no
incentive or suggestion to extend the tarp or awning of
Mattice to provide shade or a partial cover for the vertical
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007