Appeal No. 1999-1787
Application No. 08/797,521
appellant’s claim 1, the examiner urges that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of not
wrapping the lift cords therein about the riser cords “if
frictional engagement of the lift cord with the riser cord
obstructed the accumulation of the slats and as such, this
feature is not seen as constituting a patentable distinction”
(answer, page 3). Like appellant, we view the examiner’s
treatment of claim 1 on appeal as being based on total
speculation and conjecture and as providing an impermissible
hindsight reconstruction of the claimed subject matter based
solely on appellant’s own disclosure. For that reason, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 on
appeal, and the claims which depend therefrom (i.e., claims 2
through 8 and 21 through 23), under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Simon.
Independent claim 24 on appeal defines a Venetian blind
wherein the lift cords are intertwined with the riser cords
“along both the front and rear edges of said slats.” In
treating independent claim 24 on appeal, the examiner has
taken the position (answer, page 4) that eliminating the loops
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007