Appeal No. 96-0655
Application No. 08/052,507
or width of the shade” (Answer, page 5, citing Judkins,
Abstract; column 1, lines 43-58; column 2, lines 33-68; and
column 9, lines 56+).
Appellant and the examiner agree that Judkins is silent
with respect to the trimming of the honeycomb pieces to form
attachment strip surfaces (Brief, page 5, and the Answer, page
5). The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
trim the honeycomb pieces “so as to provide complimentary
mating faces of the honeycomb pieces”, especially in view of
Worcester, which is cited “as exemplary to show that it is
well known to shear the ends of pieces to be joined to provide
complimentary mating faces” (Answer, page 5). With regard to
Worcester, appellant states that this reference represents an
entirely different technology and the specific splicing method
disclosed by Worcester would be impractical to apply to a
honeycomb shade construction (Brief, page 6).
“When relying on numerous references or a modification of
prior art, it is incumbent upon the examiner to identify some
suggestion to combine references or make the modification.
[Citation omitted].” In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1342, 41
USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The examiner has not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007