Appeal No. 2004-1381
Application No. 10/155,530
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 8 and 14 as
being obvious over Woodring in view of Chen
The examiner sets for the rejection of claims 8 and 14 on
page 3 of the answer. The examiner recognizes that Woodring
suggests the invention except for having a second edge, such as
notch. The examiner relies on Chen for disclosing louver 16
having notches 160. See Figure 2 of Chen.
On page 7 of the brief, appellant argues that Chen fails to
disclose the decorative edge operating to maintain an alignment
between louvers. On page 6 of the answer, the examiner rebuts
and states that Chen is not relied upon for this aspect of the
claimed invention because Woodring teaches this aspect of the
claimed invention. We agree.
Appellant argues further that the examiner has used improper
hindsight reconstruction and queries “where in Chen’s disclosure
is there a suggestion to form notches in the rear of a louver
that has a front decorative edge that is already operable to hold
the louver in registration in a ladder during normal use of the
blind?” We disagree because Chen teaches that engagement of the
positioning slot 160 with the main cord provides slots 16 with
improved stability (the motivation). Incorporating such a
positioning slot in the arrangement of Woodring would achieve
improved stability as taught by Chen.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 8 and 14 as being obvious over Woodring in
view of Chen.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007