Appeal No. 2006-0172
Application No. 10/460,478
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge, Concurring-in-Part and Dissenting-in-Part.
I respectfully dissent as to the affirmance of the rejection of claims 1 through 8,
13 and 14. Claims 1 and 13, from which claims 2 through 8 and 14 depend each
requires that the light screening flap be made of a mesh fabric. In my view, flaps made
of mesh fabric are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art.
The examiner relies on Kandel for teaching or suggesting a mesh fabric and
states:
. . . Kandel '515 explicitly sets forth that the fringe may
comprise solid material rather than separated strands and
that the material may be made of a suitable fabric, plastic,
thin metal or other flexible material. This teaching clearly
encompasses mesh fabric which is a common fabric.
(emphasis added)[answer at page 4].
It is true that Kandel discloses that the strands depicted in Figure 1 may be
replaced by a solid fabric. However there is no teaching in Kandel that the solid fabric
comprises a mesh fabric.
In addition, it is my view that Kandel does not suggest a mesh fabric. While the
majority is correct that Kandel discloses that the strands themselves may be made of
any suitable fabric, Kandel neither discloses nor suggests anything concerning the type
of solid material that may replace the strands. Kandel only states that the strands may
be replaced by a solid material. As such, in my view the only suggestion for replacing
the strands with a mesh material stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007