Appeal No. 2004-1381
Application No. 10/155,530
maintained for louvers of Woodring’s window blind. Hence,
appellant argues that the disclosure in Woodring does not meet
the limitation of the claim regarding “maintain an alignment”,
found in claim 1 or in claim 10, or to “resist misalignment”, as
recited in claim 18.
Beginning on page 3 of the answer, the examiner carefully
explains how, in fact, the disclosure in Woodring anticipates
these phrases in claims 1, 10, and 18. The examiner explains
that, as shown in Figure 2 of Woodring, the position of the
suspension ladder 27 residing within the point of minimum width
of the slat, 26, presents a structural interference operable to
resist misalignment of the louver. We agree. Figure 2 of
Woodring shows that the manner in which ladder 27 is positioned
with regard to width 26 “presents a structural interference
operable to resist misalignment of the louver”, as stated by the
examiner on page 4 of the answer. Also, the disclosure at column
3, lines 48-53, teaches that the alignment shown in Figure 2
“prevents the slat’s body 20 from sliding within the ladder 27
when the slat’s body 20 is tilted . . .”.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claims 1-11, 13, and 16-18.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 12, 15, 19, and 20
as being obvious over Woodring
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner states that these
claims are directed to particular dimensions of the louvers, and
that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found obvious
for the purpose of accommodating various side architectural
openings . . .”.
On page 6 of the brief, appellant argues that because claims
12 and 15 depend upon independent claim 10 or 18, for the same
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007