Appeal No. 96-0655
Application No. 08/052,507
does not identify any teaching or suggestion in Worcester that
the step of cutting or shearing to provide the respective
faces 14 and 15 of end belt sections 10 and 11 for subsequent
abutting engagement (column 2, lines 27-29) would improve the
splice strength of the overlapping material forming tabs in a
honeycomb construction of Judkins.
The examiner has also “optionally” applied the Schön
reference to show including an additional attachment strip
between the attached pieces of a shade to increase the
stiffness (Answer, page 6). However, as argued by appellants
on page 6 of the Brief, none of the claims on appeal require
an additional stiffening or attachment strip. The trimming
step of appealed claim 9 does not form any additional
attachment strip but trims “a cell of said first panel of
cellular fabric to leave a first attachment strip surface”. 5
5The remaining references to Hull, Elsas, Rupe and Lampe
have been applied by the examiner for showing the use of a
trimming member in a honeycomb cell, the use of a backing
member during the trimming, and that it is well known to move
a surface past a stationary glue applicator (Answer, pages 6-
7). The examiner has not applied any of these references to
show the trimming step of appealed claim 9. We find that
these references do not remedy the deficiencies in the
rejection as noted above.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007