Appeal No. 2006-0742 Page
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,013 14
examiner that the prior art as a taken as a whole provides the requisite
motivation to combine.
Appellants also argue that the examiner has not explained "how the
wireless receiver of Iwasaki, which nowhere considers a solar energy source,
could be grafted onto the solar-powered blind of Corrazini [sic], especially since
Corrazini [sic] does not show any circuit at all" (Brief, p. 6, emphasis added).
However, both Iwaski and Corazzini disclose use of a battery-powered motor and
Iwasaki describes how to add a wireless remote control system for opening and
closing a battery-powered motor-driven window blind. Prior art references are
presumed to be enabling. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681, 207 USPQ 107, 111
(CCPA 1980). Appellants have not shown that Iwasaki would not have enabled
one of ordinary skill in the art to add a wireless remote control system for opening
and closing motor-driven window blinds to the motor-driven window blinds of
Corazzini. Therefore, appellants' arguments are insufficient to rebut the
examiner's prima facie case of obviousness over the combined disclosures of
Corazzini and Iwasaki.
Based on the foregoing, the decision of the examiner (i) to reject claims
17, 18, 27, 28 and 30 as obvious over Corazzini in view of Iwasaki is affirmed,
(ii) to reject claim 21 over Corazzini in view of Iwasaki is reversed and (ii) to
reject claim 48 as obvious over Corazzini is reversed.
V. Miscellaneous
In the event of further prosecution, the examiner should take a step back
and review the patentability of at least claim 17 in view of Iwasaki's discussion of
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007