Appeal No. 2004-1381
Application No. 10/155,530
On page 3 of the brief, appellant groups the claims
according to each rejection. To the extent any one claim is
separately argued, we consider such claim in this appeal. 37 CFR
§1.192(c)(7) and (8)(2003).
We have carefully reviewed the examiner’s answer and
appellant’s brief and reply brief. This review has led us to
conclude that each of the examiner’s rejections is well-founded
for the reasons provided by the examiner. Our comments below are
for emphasis only.
The references relied upon by the examiner are as follows:
Chen 6,192,963 Feb. 27, 2001
Woodring 6,371,191 Apr. 16, 2002
OPINION
I. The rejection of claims 1-11, 13, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Woodring
We refer to the examiner’s position in regard to this
rejection set forth on pages 3-4 of the answer. We consider
independent claims 1, 10 and 18 in this rejection.
On page 4 of the brief, appellant argues that Woodring’s
suggested edge structure and ladder suspension structure may be
sufficient to cause one or more louvers to wander out of
alignment when the louvers are tilted, unless a point of minimum
louver width is located in planar alignment with the ladder 27.
Appellant states that Woodring, therefore, discloses a structural
arrangement between his louver and suspension ladder that permits
(or even urges) the louver to wander out of alignment in its
ladder. Appellant asserts that, therefore, alignment cannot be
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007