Ex Parte Jones - Page 2




         Appeal No. 2004-1381                                                       
         Application No. 10/155,530                                                 


         between a first, a second, and a third orientation, said                   
         plurality of louvers being disposable in approximately parallel            
         combination by structure of said suspension mechanism                      
         substantially to cover said area; wherein:                                 
              at said first orientation, said blocking portion of said              
         louvers blocks direct transmission of light perpendicular to said          
         area therethrough; and                                                     
              at said second orientation, at least one aperture,                    
         permitting direct transmission of light perpendicular to said              
         area therethrough, is formed between adjacent two of said louvers          
         and is disposed spaced apart from said interface portion.                  

              8.  The apparatus of claim 1, at least one said louver                
         further comprising edge structure on a second edge for engagement          
         with suspension structure of said suspension mechanism to help             
         maintain an alignment of said at least one louver with respect to          
         said suspension structure.                                                 

              12.  The louver of claim 11, wherein:                                 
              said closest suspension portion is disposed between about 2-          
         1/2 and about 7-1/2 inches inboard from said first edge.                   

              14.  The louver of claim 11, further comprising a notch               
         disposed on said second edge at a suspension portion.                      


              Claims 1-11, 13, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.             
         § 102(e) as being anticipated by Woodring.                                 

              Claims 12, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.              
         § 103 rejection of as being obvious over Woodring.                         

              Claims 8 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103                  
         rejection of claims 8 and 14 as being obvious over Woodring in             
         view of Chen.                                                              
                                        -2-                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007