Appeal No. 1999-1787
Application No. 08/797,521
which recitation has no proper antecedent basis. While
appellant has also suggested possible corrective language
(i.e., that “the left cord” in each instance should be “the
lift cord”), we observe that no amendment has been filed
requesting or making any such correction. Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection of 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is sustained.
Considering next the examiner’s prior art rejection of
the appealed claims relying on Simon, we observe that
independent claim 1 on appeal is directed to a Venetian blind
of the type generally seen in Simon, with the exception that
appellant’s claimed blind has a requirement of:
“at least one of said lift cords being interwoven with
the cross rungs of an associated one of said ladders while
remaining between the riser cords of the associated ladder
substantially along the entire length of said riser cords.”
The examiner has urged (answer, page 3) that Simon
discloses lift cords (18, 19, 32, 33) which are illustrated as
being interwoven with the cross rungs (34) of the Venetian
blind therein, and appellant likewise indicates (brief, page
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007