Appeal No. 97-2147 Page 10
Application No. 08/512,477
the examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 4, 7 through 10,
13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 utilizing Sandall as the primary reference.
Rejections based on Helver as primary reference 4
We agree with the appellant (reply brief, pp. 3-6) that
the applied prior art would not have been suggestive of the
claimed subject matter. In that regard, Helver does not
disclose or suggest the claimed wand connected to the control
shaft for rotating the control shaft and for drawing the
control carriage along the headrail. The examiner relies on
one of Helver's support stems 18 or one of Helver's slats 20
as being readable on the claimed wand. We do not agree. In
our view, in this art the term "wand" has a well-known
meaning and neither Helver's support stem 18 nor Helver's5
slat 20 would have been considered by an artisan to be a
"wand." In addition, we see no reason in the applied prior
art absent impermissible hindsight to have modified Helver's
4See pages 2-4 of the examiner's answer.
5See Marocco's wand 20 and Salzmann's wand 91.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007