Appeal No. 1997-0276
Application No. 08/357,641
such a location for the self-evident advantages indicated by
the examiner. Furthermore, we merely note that it would have
been obvious to mount the roller 130 of Mattice in a lower
position to minimize the clearance between tarp 128 and the
top of the slide-out unit to therefore minimize the amount of
debris, dirt, leaves, etc. that could enter onto the silde-out
unit via any clearance between the tarp and the slide-out
unit.
Appellants' sole argument for the patentability of claim
10 is that claim 10 is patentable for the reasons given in the
discussion of the patentability of claim 1. However, as noted
above, claim 10 does not include the provision of a window,
and thus, does not require a window shading awning. It is
apparent that the patentability argument of claim 1 is
completely irrelevant to claim 10.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007