Appeal No. 1999-0574
Application No. 08/583,588
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner cites
Zerillo as teaching a drapery actuator controlled by wireless
remote. The examiner cites the admitted prior art as teaching
lighting associated with a window covering. The examiner
asserts "[t]hus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to utilize the admitted prior art with
Zerillo as it is stated as known within the art" [answer,
pages 6-7].
Appellants argue that Zerillo does not teach or
suggest a system utilizing a cornice or a lighting system
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007