Appeal No. 2000-1732
Application No. 08/972,852
being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would
otherwise be allowable according to the examiner if rewritten
in independent form including all of the limitations of the
base claim and intervening claims. As indicated in an
advisory action (Paper No. 11), subsequent to the final
rejection the examiner entered an amendment (Paper No. 10)
canceling claims 23 through 26. Thus, claims 1 through 7 and
9 through 22 are before us for review.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a venetian type blind.
A basic understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 1, a copy of which appears in the
APPENDIX to the main brief (Paper No. 11).
As evidence of anticipation and obviousness, the examiner
has applied the documents listed below:
Walker 2,200,349 May 14,
1940
Abraham 3,460,601 Aug. 12,
1969
Simon 5,060,709 Oct. 29,
1991
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007