Ex Parte Colson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 5, 2007

10305972 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 5, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte WENDELL B. COLSON
_____________

Appeal 2006-3364
Application 10/305,972
Technology Center 3600
______________

Decided: June 5, 2007
_______________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, and
ROBERT E. NAPPI Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellant appeals from a rejection of claims 1-21, which are all
of the pending claims.

Appeal 2006-3364
Application 10/305,972

THE INVENTION
The Appellant claims a covering for an architectural opening, e.g., a
pleated shade or a roman shade for a window. Claims 1l and 18 are
illustrative:
11. A covering for an architectural opening comprising:

a substantially horizontally-extending headrail, the headrail
being adapted for attachment to a support surface;

a substantially horizontally-extending footrail, the footrail being
vertically disposed beneath the headrail;

a continuous roman shade, the continuous roman shade coupled
to the headrail at a top end and to the footrail at a bottom end;

a substantially vertically-orientated spacer cord, the spacer cord
being fixedly attached to the headrail at a top end and to the
footrail at a bottom end, the spacer cord being adhesively
bonded to the continuous roman shade at a plurality of
vertically-spaced locations, said bonding being with a bead of
adhesive at a single point at each vertically spaced location.

18. A covering for an architectural opening comprising:

a continuous extendable shade having a top end and a bottom
end; and

a substantially horizontally-orientated spacer cord, the spacer
cord being adhesively bonded to the continuous shade at a
plurality of horizontally-spaced locations proximate the bottom
end, said bonding being with a bead of adhesive at a single
point at each horizontally spaced location.

2

Appeal 2006-3364
Application 10/305,972

THE APPLIED PRIOR ART
Fairbanks US 4,582,109 Apr. 15, 1986
Alcocer US 5,184,659 Feb. 09, 1993
Appellant’s prior art figures 1-4

THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1-
17 and 21 over the Appellant’s prior art figures 1-4 in view of Alcocer, and
claims 18-20 over Fairbanks in view of Alcocer.

OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.

Rejection over the Appellant’s prior art
figures 1-4 in view of Alcocer
The Appellant’s prior art figures 1 and 2 show pleated blinds (10)
having spacer cords or straps (22) attached to a headrail (14), a midrail (20)
and a footrail (16) (Spec. 1: 22 – 2:10). The Appellant’s prior art figures 3
and 4 show roman shades (30) having spacer cords (44) attached to a
headrail (36), a footrail (38) and, between sections of fabric shade
material (32), a plurality of vertically spaced ribs (34) (Spec. 2:26 – 3:5).
The attachment of the spacer cords to the ribs is by way of staples (46)
(Spec. 3:2-3).
3

Appeal 2006-3364
Application 10/305,972

Alcocer discloses an aircraft window shade having a pair of narrow
width, vertical pleated strips (30) of textile material sewed, stapled or
adhesively secured to vertically spaced ribs (10b) between vertically
adjacent pleats (10a) (col. 4, ll. 37-54).
The Appellant points out that Alcocer discloses sewing, stapling or
adhesively securing bands or strips, and argues that it would not appear
sufficient to adhesively secure shade material to a small cord at tiny finite
locations (Br. 7, 9-12). The Appellant’s claims do not require that the cord
is small or that the adhesive beads are tiny. The Appellant’s disclosure that
it was known to use spacer cords or straps (Spec. 2:8) indicates that spacer
cords need not be thin but, instead, can be more strap-like. Regardless,
because, in a window environment, pleated and roman shades tend to not be
subject to physical abuse, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reasonable expectation that any of the alternative fastening techniques
disclosed by Alcocer would be adequate to attach a spacer cord to a pleated
or roman shade section at the vertically spaced locations in the Appellant’s
prior art figures 1 and 3.
The Appellant argues that because Alcocer uses spacer strips which
require a large amount of adhesive, Alcocer would have led to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use a large amount of adhesive to adhere a spacer
cord to a pleat such that the cord is adhesively bonded along the top and
bottom surfaces of the pleat (Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 1-2). The Appellant
4

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

Appeal 2006-3364
Application 10/305,972

The Appellant argues that Alcocer would not have fairly suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art that using spacer cords in place of pleated
strips would reduce costs and complexity (Br. 7-8). As pointed out above,
for a prima facie case of obviousness to be established the prior art need not
be modified for the purpose of solving the problem addressed by the
Appellant. See Kemps, 97 F.3d at 1430, 40 USPQ2d at 1311; Beattie, 974
F.2d at 1312, 24 USPQ2d at 1042; Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 16 USPQ2d at
1901. The Examiner relies upon the Appellant’s admitted prior art for a
disclosure of spacer cords (Final Rejection mailed April 13, 2004, p. 2).
Alcocer’s indication that mechanical fasteners and adhesives are effective
for bonding spacing strips to ribs between sections of pleated material
(col. 4, ll. 41-45) would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no
more than ordinary creativity, to use adhesive as an alternative to mechanical
fasteners for fastening the spacer cords at the joints between the pleated
material sections in the Appellant’s prior art figures 1 and 3. See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
The Appellant argues that it would have been unexpected to one of
ordinary skill in the art that an adhesive bead at a point location “would
provide the necessary strength for reliably obtaining uniform spacing of the
pleats” (Reply Br. 2). The Appellant’s claims do not require reliably
obtaining uniform spacing of the pleats. Regardless, the Appellant has not
provided evidence of unexpected results. Arguments of counsel cannot take
the place of evidence. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ
191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315, 203 USPQ 245,
256 (CCPA 1979).
6

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

Appeal 2006-3364
Application 10/305,972

693, 16 USPQ2d at 1901. An adequate motivation would have been to
attach the spacer cord to the pleated material joints.
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection
over Fairbanks in view of Alcocer.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-17 and 21 over the
Appellant’s prior art figures 1-4 in view of Alcocer, and claims 18-20 over
Fairbanks in view of Alcocer are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

vsh

DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
370 SEVENTEENTH STREET
SUITE 4700
DENVER, CO 80202-5647
8