Appeal 2006-3364
Application 10/305,972
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection over the Appellant’s admitted prior art in view of
Alcocer.
Rejection over Fairbanks in view of Alcocer
Fairbanks discloses a pleated window shade having pleated
material (12) fastened at fold lines (16) to restraint strips (27, 27’) by plastic
fasteners (28) (col. 3, l. 54 – col. 4, l. 9).
The Appellant argues that Fairbanks does not disclose using adhesive
to secure the restraint strips to the pleated material (Br. 8). Alcocer’s
indication that both mechanical fasteners and adhesives are suitable for
fastening spacer strips to pleated material joints (col. 4, ll. 41-45; fig. 2)
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than
ordinary creativity, to use an adhesive to fasten Fairbanks’ restraint strips to
the pleated material joints. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. at
1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
The Appellant argues that Fairbanks does not disclose or suggest that
using spacer cords secured to the pleated material with adhesives would
reduce cost and complexity (Br. 8). The Appellant’s admission that spacer
cords and straps were known in the art (Spec. 2: 6-8) indicates that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have used either restraint straps or spacer
cords in Fairbanks’ pleated window shade. As pointed out above, the
motivation for using Alcocer’s adhesive instead of Fairbanks’ plastic
fasteners need not be to solve the particular problem (cost and complexity)
addressed by the Appellant. See Kemps, 97 F.3d at 1430, 40 USPQ2d at
1311; Beattie, 974 F.2d at 1312, 24 USPQ2d at1042; Dillon, 919 F.2d at
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013