Ex Parte Weiss - Page 7

            Appeal 2007-0872                                                                                
            Application 10/159,762                                                                          

        1   With reference to Figure 6, the web 36 has been pulled out laterally from the                   
        2   window for insertion of guides or rods 72.  Therefore, it can not be said to have               
        3   been guided across the window opening at this stage of Gottschalk’s assembly. The               
        4   argument that Gottschalk teaches away from the weaving or knitting of pockets                   
        5   directly into the fabric because sewn pockets would make the web thicker and                    
        6   therefore more protective is conjecture on the part of the Appellant.                           
        7          In the Reply, Appellant argues that the rods of Gottschalk do not provide a              
        8   guiding function.  We disagree.  After the rods 72 are inserted in pockets 70 and as            
        9   the ends of the rods are placed over raised members 50, the fabric is guided into its           
       10   precise desired position protecting the window opening.                                         
       11          With respect to claim 31, here again we do not find in the prior art tubular             
       12   pockets that extend in two perpendicular directions and cross in the fabric and thus            
       13   we will reverse the rejection as to this claim.                                                 
       14          With respect to claims 33-36 we also affirm the rejection of these claims                
       15   based as they are on the additional disclosure of Swanson which shows the feature               
       16   of a foil or coating on a roller blind web and Gottschalk’s disclosure of a PVC                 
       17   coating. Using coatings and layers for weather protection (Gottschalk), heat                    
       18   insulation, light blockage or reflection, and air tightness while permitting                    
       19   illumination or vision (Swanson) are all features that are known in the prior art and           
       20   would have been obvious to use on a roller blind web with predictable results.                  
       21          Finally, turning to a consideration of claim 40, we do not find in the prior art         
       22   the specific teaching that the thickness of the tubular pockets is substantially the            
       23   same as the thickness of the fabric web between the tubular pockets.  As far as we              
       24   can determine, the Examiner has not addressed this feature with a convincing                    
       25   argument.  Accordingly, the rejection of claim 40 is also reversed.                             
       26                                                                                                   

                                                     7                                                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013