Appeal No. 96-0655
Application No. 08/052,507
(Answer, page 7). We reverse all of the examiner’s4
rejections for reasons which follow.
OPINION
The method of appealed claim 9 recites, inter alia,
“trimming a cell of said first panel of cellular fabric to
leave a first attachment strip surface extending centrally of
the thickness of said first panel of material and the full
length of said cell” and a corresponding trimming step for a
cell of a second panel to form a second attachment strip
surface such that these surfaces can be adhered together to
form the composite window covering (see also the
specification, page 5, line 25-page 6, line 2).
The examiner applies Judkins as the primary reference to
“show[s] a method of forming a tubular honeycomb shade wherein
a splice joint may be used to secure two pieces of material
either for repair of a defective or damaged material, to
achieve a desired aesthetic effect or to customize the length
4The restatement of this rejection on page 7 of the Answer
omits the Elsas and Rupe references although referring to the
rejection "as applied to claim 10", which included Elsas and
Rupe along with Hull. In view of our disposition of this
appeal as noted infra, this inconsistency by the examiner is
harmless error.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007