Appeal No. 2006-0172
Application No. 10/460,478
dependent claims 2 through 8 and 14, we conclude that those claims will fall with their
respective independent claims1.
Concerning dependent claims 9 and 15, appellant argues that there is no teaching or
suggestion in Kandel to provide a rib
1 In the event of any further prosecution of the present application, we direct
attention to the admitted prior art seen in Figures 13 and 14 of the application and to the
description
thereof on pages 1 and 2 of the specification. It appears that the fabric sheets or flaps
(92) suspended from the slats of the venetian type blind of the admitted prior art are
similar to, if not identical to, those of the present invention, in that they are constructed
of a fabric which facilitates the passage of light and defines “a light screening face at the
front sides of the slats 91” (page 1, lines 24-25).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007