Appeal No. 2004-1448
Application No. 09/454,723
with respect to electrically powered operation are sufficient to support the examiner’s
finding of a motivation to combine the references.1
Being not persuaded of error in the ultimate conclusion of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter as a whole of instant claim 37, we sustain the rejection.
Claims 38 through 40 fall with claim 37, as appellants have not provided arguments in
support of separate patentability. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
We thus sustain the rejection of claims 37-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Riordan and Shopp.
1 If the examiner is presented with arguments that Shopp represents non-analogous art, in the
event of further prosecution, we note that similarity in the structure and function of the invention and the
prior art is indicative that the prior art is within the inventor’s field of endeavor. State Contracting & Eng’g
Corp. v. Condotte Am., Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 1069, 68 USPQ2d 1481, 1489 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re
Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). We further note that the references
cited in the Shopp patent, and its assignee, relate to “Draper Shade & Screen Co., Inc.” The company
name itself indicates the recognition of similarity in structure and function of window coverings and
projection screens.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007