Appeal No. 2000-0941 Page 10
Application No. 09/077,362
The obviousness rejection based on Cadmus
We will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over5
Cadmus.
As set forth above, it is our opinion that Cadmus'
strips 14 do not "hang freely" from his shade 10 due to the
presence of stitching 16. In this rejection, the examiner
appears (answer, page 4) to have concluded that it would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to eliminate Cadmus'
stitching 16 to permit Cadmus' strips 14 to hang freely.
However, since the examiner has not
5Claims 3 and 10 indirectly depend from claim 1.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007