Appeal No. 2006-0172
Application No. 10/460,478
sides of the slats. When the slats (22) are in their open position as seen, for example,
in Figures 1 through 3, the light screening fabric flaps (26) hang down and cover the
space between the slats thereby providing a light screening face (29) that “screens and
softens the light, producing a tender and pleasant lighting atmosphere in the room”
(specification, page 8). Independent claims 1 and 13 are representative of the subject
matter on appeal and a copy of those claims may be found in the “Claims Appendix”
attached to appellant’s brief.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal are:
Kandel 3,490,515 Jan. 20, 1970
Zorbas 5,829,506 Nov. 3, 1998
Claims 1 through 9 and 13 through 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zorbas in view
of Kandel.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary with regard to the
above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by appellant and the
examiner regarding the rejection, we make reference to the answer (mailed May 26,
2005) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007