Appeal 2006-3364
Application 10/305,972
argues that the Appellant’s minimization of the amount of adhesive
improves the blind’s aesthetics (Reply Br. 1-2). Alcocer’s disclosure of
adhesively bonding the vertical pleated strips to pleated shades only at the
vertically spaced ribs (col. 4, ll. 41-45; fig. 2) would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to bond a
spacer cord to pleated material only at those locations in the shades shown in
the Appellant’s prior art figures 1 and 3. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (“A person of
ordinary skill is also a person or ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). As
pointed out above, because pleated and roman shades are used in an
environment wherein they tend to not be treated harshly, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have reasonably expected an adhesive bead to be
adequate to bond the spacer cord to the pleated material. Moreover,
although the prior art need not be modified for the purpose of solving the
problem solved by the Appellant, see In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40
USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16
USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904
(1991), it also would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in
the art that attaching the spacer cord and pleated material using an adhesive
bead would minimize the adhesive requirement and would produce a more
attractive shade than one having the structure argued by the Appellant
wherein a cord is fastened to the top and bottom portions of the pleats.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013