Appeal 2006-2874
Application 09/888,044
agreement with the Examiner that Appellants’ claims read on Taylor’s U-
shaped channels wherein a portion thereof, i.e., the aluminum rods, are made
of metal.2 Moreover, we fail to see any merit in Appellants’ assertion that
Taylor teaches away from the claimed invention, since the claims, as broadly
drafted, read on a shutter wherein the metal portion of the channel member
is concealed.3
Appellants have not presented separate arguments for any particular
claim. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed.
each of said channel members having a U-shaped cross-section
and being made from a material, . . . the first and second
channel members forming exterior vertical edges of the shutter
(Claim 11).
a first channel member and a second channel member that form
exterior vertical edges of the shutter, each of said channel
members having a U-shaped cross section and being made from
a metal (Claim 17).
2 We further note that Appellants’ arguments regarding differences in
function of the claimed channel members versus those of Taylor are not
relevant to patentability of the structure as claimed.
3 Appellants rely on this argument to overcome the Examiner’s rejection3
based on the combined teachings of Taylor and Ruggles. Appellants fail to
address, on the merits, the Examiner’s citation of Ruggles as showing that
metal would have been a suitable material for construction of Taylor’s
channel members (Br., para. bridging 4-5).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007