Appeal No. 2006-0742 Page
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,013 11
as positively recited in claim 21. Neither has the examiner provided any prior art
reference describing a "high" to "low" conversion signal programmable logic
controller (or any motivation to modify the window shade assembly of Corazzini
by adding such a programmable logic controller) in support of his obviousness
argument. The examiner simply concludes that the "'high' and 'low' signals are
indirectly disclosed by Corazzini column 2, lines 34-36" (Answer, p. 16), i.e.,
where Corazzini states that "[a] structure 44 is mechanically connected to the
motor 40, for opening and closing the slats 32 in the venetian blind 12". The test
for an implicit showing is what the reference disclosure, the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). The examiner has not shown that
Corazzini implicitly discloses "a second control signal to stop the motor" as
required by claim 21.5 For example, the examiner might have provided evidence
showing that it was both well known and within ordinary skill in the relevant art to
use a "high" to "low" signal conversion programmable logic controller to operate a
motor-drive rod operably attached to a venetian blind to open and close the
venetian blind, thereby providing the three control signals recited in claim 21.
5 We note that immediately following the citation relied upon by the examiner, Corazzini states (c.
2, ll. 37-42):
[t]he opening and closing structure 44 includes an elongate tilt rod shaft
46 extending from the motor 40. at least one cradle 48 in the head channel 26,
for rotatively carrying the tilt rod shaft 46. A tilt gear 50 is on a distal end of the
tilt rod shaft 46, to operate a tilt mechanism 52 for the slats 32.
Since neither the examiner nor the appellants have commented on what one of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood from this explanation of the mechanical structure relied upon by
the examiner as an "indirect" showing of the claim limitation under consideration, we will not raise
the issue sua sponte.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007