Appeal No. 2006-0172
Application No. 10/460,478
some form of “mesh” fabric would meet all of the requirements imposed by Kandel on
the screening elements, i.e., the need for providing some level of privacy, while at the
same time ensuring adequate ventilation through the blind and obscuring the glare of
the direct sun.
Contrary to appellant’s assertions in the brief (page 4), we find no basis to conclude
that one skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of Zorbas and Kandel to
arrive at a venetian type blind having a fringe on the fabric slats “which fringe does not
allow light to pass, but rather obscures the opening between the slats to afford privacy.”
In our view, such an arrangement is contrary to the clear teachings of Kandel and is
belied by the open nature of the fringe seen in Figures 1, 3 and 4 of the patent. We also
again note the disclosure in the Abstract and at column 3, lines 27-30 of the Kandel
patent that the fringe or “screening elements” provide a screen when the slats are in
their open position to afford a level of privacy, but nonetheless, at the same time permit
adequate ventilation through the blind and obscure the glare of the direct sun. There is
simply no disclosure or teaching in Kandel of a “screening element” that would not allow
light to pass, as appellant has argued in the brief.
Appellant’s further argument in the brief (page 5) that Zorbas does not teach or
suggest the limitation in claim 1 of the ribs in the slats being fastened to the ladders, is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007