Appeal No. 2000-1712
Application No. 08/624,091
and the examiner. For the reasons which follow we cannot
sustain the examiner's rejection.
Trippner discloses an extendible and retractable light
guard device in the form of a shutter or a shade with a light
guard sheet or web 2 in the space 1a between two panes 1 of an
insulating glass window. The shutter 2 is wound around a
cylindrical winding roller 3 and is extendible and retractable
by an electric motor 3a also located between the panes.
Trippner's shutter is not wound around a multi-sided mandrel
and is not provided with creases, as called for in claim 17.
Additionally, in that Trippner is silent with regard to the
thickness of the shutter, Trippner provides no response for
the limitation in claim 17 that the blind comprise a film
having a thickness between 0.01 and 0.05 mm.
To overcome the above-noted deficiencies, the examiner
relies upon the teachings of Henkenjohann of a pleated blind.
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to
modify the shade material and arbor (winding roller) of
Trippner to have a pleated shade and conforming arbor as
taught by Henkenjohann (answer, p. 3). According to the
examiner, "[t]he specific thickness and spacing of the pleats
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007