Appeal No. 1997-0276
Application No. 08/357,641
outer wall of Mattice. No purpose, articulated by the
examiner, or otherwise, would be served by an extension of the
tarp or awning. Accordingly, the rejection is not well
founded, and we will not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and
9.
Turning to a consideration of claim 10, we note that the
extendable unit therein claimed does not rely on any
fenestration for patentability. As noted supra, Mattice
shows, particularly in Figure 9, a tarp 128 and roller 130.
We note from the Figure that roller 130 extends at an
elevation higher than the horizontal top wall of the
extendable slide-out unit. Turning to a consideration of
Boyer, Boyer shows a retractable fabric roof for an automotive
vehicle in which the take-up roller 23 is mounted at an
elevation lower than what could be said to be the horizontal
top wall. The examiner is of the view that it would have been
obvious to mount the roller of Mattice below the horizontal
top wall so that the position of the roller would be more
easily accessible for cleaning and maintenance. We are in
agreement with the examiner that Boyer would have been
suggestive of mounting the take-up roller 130 of Mattice in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007