Appeal No. 97-2147 Page 9
Application No. 08/512,477
control shaft for rotating the control shaft and for drawing
the control carriage along the headrail.
Rejections based on Sandall as primary reference3
We agree with the appellant (brief, pp. 13-15) that the
combined teachings of the applied prior art would not have
been suggestive of the claimed subject matter. In that
regard, we view the examiner's determination that Sandall's
flexible drive cable (i.e., Bowden cable 14) is "flimsy and
subject to failure after repeated use" to be sheer speculation
unsupported by any evidence in the record. Likewise, the
examiner's determination that Helver's system of gear-to-gear
contact is "more substantial" than Sandall's system amounts to
sheer speculation unsupported by any evidence in the record.
In our opinion, the teachings of Helver and Salzmann would not
have provided any suggestion to an artisan to have modified
Sandall's vertical blinds in the manner necessary to arrive at
the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we do not sustain
3See pages 2-4 of the final rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007