Appeal 2006-3004
Application 10/796,708
1
2 Obviousness
3 We do not agree with the Appellants that to provide a third tab on the
4 flange disclosed in Sarkisian would require structure that might extend
5 toward the window because the third tab could be placed perpendicular to
6 the disclosed tabs extending away from the window. We also do not agree
7 with the Appellants that there would be no motivation to cover the flanges
8 disclosed by Sarkisian with a cover because the flanges are covered by a
9 curtain. In our view, it is not clear that the flanges would be totally covered
10 by a curtain in the modified Sarkisian device. This is so firstly because a
11 third tab may be placed perpendicular to the other displayed tabs in a
12 position extending away from the window and not be covered by a curtain.
13 Secondly, a curtain placed on rod b may not cover the tab that extends
14 toward the ceiling.
15 In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the Appellants have not
16 shown that the Examiner erred in holding that claims 1, 4 and 5 are
17 unpatentable over Sarkisian in view of Guenther. Therefore, we will sustain
18 this rejection of the claims.
19 AFFIRMED
20
21
22 JRG
23
24 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
25 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
26 SUITE 350
27 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013