Appeal 2007-2868
Application 10/256,503
braided control cord, and a method of making the cord. Claim 1 recites that
the cord is braided and chemically coated while under high tension, whereas
independent claims 7 and 16 recite braiding and chemically coating under
simply tension.
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) claims 1-4, 6, 12, and 15 over Englund in view of Eisler;
(b) claims 5, 14, and 15 over Englund in view of Eisler and Hatch;
(c) claim 13 over Englund in view of Eisler and Yamato;
(d) claims 7-11, 16, 18, and 19 over Eisler in view of Hatch; and
(e) claim 17 over Eisler in view of Hatch and Yamato.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in agreement with the Examiner that the
claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer.
Eisler, like Appellants, discloses a method of chemically coating a
braided cord with a polyurethane for the purpose of, inter alia, providing a
cord that is resistant to abrasion and tearing (see Eisler, col. 5, ll. 39-43).
Also, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s legal conclusion that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the
cord of Eisler in the device of Englund for covering an architectural opening
(Englund does not provide specifics regarding the control cord). It is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013