Appeal No. 97-1133
Application 08/424,247
block the desired degree of light, without unnecessarily
impairing the driver's view of the roadway and without the
need for the fairly heavy tinting used in the prior art).
With particular regard to previously allowed
independent claims 3, 7, 9 and 13, and the claims which depend
therefrom, we note again that the shade assembly of Klose is
fully responsive to the dual shade arrangement set forth in
these claims, except for the particular material from which
the shade members are made. As already articulated above, it
is our opinion that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, from the combined teachings of
Klose, Stulbach, Kivikink and Selph, to modify the shade
arrangement of Klose to utilize a transparent, tinted plastic
polarized material as the particular material from which the
shades (8) are made, so as to gain the noted advantages
clearly set forth in the secondary references.
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007