Appeal No. 1998-0490
Application 08/543,057
affirmed.
We reverse the rejection of claim 10 since the evidence
of obviousness would not have been suggestive of the
limitation of all creases on the same side of the material of
the sunshield.
The rejection of claims 12 and 13, dependent from claim
9, is affirmed, since an argument has not been specifically
made that the particular content of each claims 12 and 13
would not have been suggested by the applied prior art. Thus,
these claims appropriately stand or fall with claim 9, the
rejection of which has been affirmed.
We reverse the rejection of method claims 14 through 16.
We incorporate herein our analysis above, reversing the
rejection of claim 1 based upon the combined teachings of Kim
and Romano. Akin to limitations present in claim 1, the
method of independent claim 14 requires creasing on only one
side of the sunshield being manufactured, the sunshield being
foldable accordion-like. The claimed method of manufacturing
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007