Appeal No. 2004-0053 Page 3
Application No. 09/678,635
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 6, mailed April 16, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 13, mailed
February 25, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (Paper No. 12, filed November 27, 2002) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The claimed subject matter
Claims 1 and 10, the only independent claims on appeal, read as follows:
1. A system for providing a positive stop for a lead carrier in a window covering
system, comprising:
an anchoring structure for being supported along a path of travel of a lead
carrier for a window covering mechanism;
an engagement structure having an extension having a first end with an
enlarged portion and a second end, said engagement structure for attachment to
said lead carrier such that said first end is alignable with an engagement aperture
in said anchoring structure to cause said enlarged portion of said first end of said
engagement structure to be at least one of momentum and force engageable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007