Ex Parte Horvath

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 18, 2010

11300734 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 18, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LOUIS HORVATH
____________

Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown in the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Louis Horvath (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-15, and 21-29. Appellant
cancelled claims 2, 5, 7, 10, and 16-20. The Examiner objected to claim 6.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The claimed invention is to a pull screen apparatus, a pull bar screen
system, and a screen pull bar.
Claims 1, 11, and 25, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A pull-screen apparatus, comprising:
a sheet of screen;
a first lock bar;
a second lock bar placed in opposition to the
first lock bar, wherein an end of the sheet of screen
is interposed between the first and second lock
bars; and
a lock bar casing surrounding the first and
second lock bars.

11. A pull-bar screen system, comprising:
a screen for retraction into and extension
from a cassette housing;
a lock-bar casing connected to a lower end
of the screen, the pull-bar providing a means for
retracting and extending the screen into and out of
the cassette housing;
lock bars positioned on either side of the
lower end of the screen and within the lock bar
casing,
wherein the lock-bar casing and the lock
bars form a pull-bar; and
end caps connected to either end of the lock
bar casing.
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

3
25. A screen pull bar consisting of:
a casing having two ends and a generally U-
shape profile with opposing lips defining an
opening therebetween;
a first lock bar;
a second lock bar; and
end caps disposed proximate said two ends,
wherein said first lock bar and said second lock bar
are removably operable with said casing.

The Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Tedeschi (U.S. Patent No. 5,090,468, issued Feb. 25, 1992).
Ans. 3.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tedeschi. Ans. 3.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Tedeschi and Hammond (U.S. Patent No. 4,258,517, issued Mar. 31,
1981). Ans. 3.
Claims 21-23 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tedeschi and Johnson (U.S. Patent No. 2,350,235, issued
May 30, 1944). Ans. 3.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
DISCUSSION
Issues
In light of the Appellant’s contentions and the Examiner’s positions,
the issues before us are as follows:
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

4
(1) Did the Examiner err in interpreting Tedeschi to disclose a lock
bar casing biased toward a closed position as recited in claim 3?
(2) Did the Examiner err in determining that Tedeschi discloses a
blade extension connected to a lower surface of the cap head and mating
with a cavity within said lock bar casing as recited in claim 4?
(3) Did the Examiner err in determining that Tedeschi discloses first
and second lock bars having offsetting channels as recited in claim 9?
(4) Did the Examiner err in finding that claim 11 is anticipated by
Tedeschi because the screen only need be capable of retracting into a
cassette housing?
(5) Did the Examiner err in interpreting Tedeschi to disclose a tension
of the sheet of screen which increases a force retaining the sheet of screen
between the first and second lock bars as recited in claim 24?
(6) Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tedeschi by a
duplication of parts to have a series of elongated rods forming a corrugated
surface as recited in claim 8?
(7) Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Tedeschi and
Hammond to include a female indentation on an outer surface of the pull bar
as recited in claim 13?
(8) Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Tedeschi and Johnson render obvious first and second lock bars that do not
protrude through the opening between the lips as recited in claim 21?
(9) Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tedeschi by the
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

5
teachings of Johnson so that the lock bar casing has lips defining an opening
and the first and second lock bars have rounded ends proximate the opening
of the lock bar casing to meet the recitations of claim 23?
(10) Did the Examiner err in concluding that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to modify Tedeschi by the teachings of
Johnson to arrive at a screen pull bar consisting of only a casing, first and
second lock bars, and end caps as recited in claim 25?
Analysis
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tedeschi

Claim 1
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Tedeschi. Although Appellant states that “[Appellant] hereby
appeals the final rejection of each of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-15, and 21-29
(App. Br. 2), Appellant presents no arguments of error regarding the
rejection of claim 1 (App. Br. 5). As such, Appellant has waived any
argument regarding the rejection of claim 1, and we summarily sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of this claim.
Issue 1 - Claim 3
Appellant contends that Tedeschi fails to teach that the lock bar casing
is biased towards a closed position, but instead teaches the strips 10, 11 are
retained in the casing 3a, 3b, 3c by saw tooth ribs 10b, 11b which engage
recesses in seat 9. App. Br. 5. Appellant also contends that because the
strips 10, 11 are retained in the casing 3a, 3b, 3c by the ribs 10b, 11b, “there
is no teaching in Tedeschi of the biased lock bar casing of the claimed
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

6
invention that prevents extraction of the lock bars via pinching, since the
strips of Tedeschi are retained via ribs 10b and 11b.” Id.
The Examiner’s position is that at column 3, lines 11-14, Tedeschi
clearly discloses the strips 10, 11 as being inserted into the seat 9 by the
elastic outward deformation of the walls 3a, 3b. Ans. 4. The Examiner also
posits that the elastic deformation of the walls 3a, 3b provides for the biasing
feature in Tedeschi. Id.
Tedeschi discloses a device for locking a roll-up curtain for protection
of window openings 2. Title and col. 2, ll. 49-51. The roll-up curtain 1 is
mounted so as to be rolled up onto a conventional roller device located at the
top of the curtain 1. Col. 2, ll. 53-55. A flap section 3 is fastened to the
lower edge of the curtain 1 and bears a locking device in the form of latches
17. Col. 2, ll. 56-57 and col. 3, ll. 25-27. The flap section 3 slides at its ends
by means of special heads 4 in two vertical guides 5 inserted in posts 6 of a
metal frame enclosing the window opening 2. Col. 2, ll. 58-61. The flap
section 3 includes two walls 3a, 3b vertically facing one another and
connected to each other via an upper septum 3c and a lower septum 3d
which extend horizontally for the length of the flap section 3. Col. 2, ll. 61-
65. The facing walls 3a, 3b of the flap section 3 have respective longitudinal
slots 15 therein. Col. 3, ll. 20-21. The longitudinal slots 15 communicate
with associated channels 16 defined inside of flap section 3 by two little
walls 3e formed in the walls 3a, 3b in approximately a central position
between the septa 3c, 3d. Col. 3, ll. 21-24. The upper septum 3c defines the
bottom of a seat 9 for mounting two complementary strips 10, 11. Col. 3, ll.
2-4. The strips 10, 11 each have a single longitudinal triangular tooth 10a,
11a for mating with a single longitudinal triangular recess on the other of the
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

7
strips in order to clamp the lower edge of the curtain 1 between the strips 10,
11. Col. 3, ll. 4-12. The strips 10, 11 are inserted into the seat 9 by the
elastic outward deformation of the walls 3a, 3b.
First, we note that the embodiments presented in Figure 3 of the
present invention and in Figure 7 of Tedeschi appear to have very similar
structures as shown below.
Figure 3 of the present
invention is reproduced below:
Figure 7 of Tedeschi
is reproduced below:

Figure 3 of the present invention
depicts a pull bar screen apparatus
100 having a screen 105 between
lock bars 120 within lock bar
casing 150.
Figure 7 of Tedeschi depicts
complementary strips 10, 11
clamping curtain 1 via teeth 10a,
11a, the strips 10, 11 being seated
within walls 3a, 3b and septum 3c.

Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

8
In view of the virtually identical structures of Figure 3 of the present
invention and Figure 7 of Tedeschi, we agree with the Examiner that
Tedeschi discloses a lock bar casing biased toward a closed position as
recited in claim 3. Moreover, Tedeschi’s disclosure at column 3, lines 12-
14, that the strips 10, 11 are inserted into the seat 9 by elastic outward
deformation of the walls 3a, 3b, supports the Examiner’s finding that
Tedeschi teaches its lock bar casing (walls 3a, 3b and septum 3c) as being
biased towards a closed position.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tedeschi.
Issue 2 - Claim 4
Appellant contends that Tedeschi fails to teach an end cap having a
blade extension that mates with a cavity of the lock bar casing as recited in
claim 4. App. Br. 5. Appellant further contends that extension 30 of
Tedeschi does not engage a cavity within the lock bar casing, but instead
engages little walls 3e so that extension 30 does not teach the claimed blade
extension and could not perform the same lock bar retaining and biasing
functions. App. Br. 6. More particularly, Appellant contends that strips 10,
11 are not disposed proximate little walls 3e and thus could not be engaged
by the blade extensions. Id.
The Examiner’s position is that “Tedeschi discloses a pull screen
apparatus comprising a screen 1, first and second lock bars 10, 11 having a
corrugated surface 10a, 11a, a lock bar casing 3a-e, [and] an end cap 4, 26,
28, 30.” Ans. 3. In the Response to Argument section of the Examiner’s
Answer, the Examiner posits that the lock bar casing 3 of Tedeschi is
defined by walls 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, and 3e as disclosed at column 2, lines 56-68
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

9
and column 3, lines 1-5 and the blade extension 30 of the end cap 4 is
disposed within the cavity defined by the walls 3e as disclosed at column 3,
lines 55-60. Ans. 4-5.
We agree with the Examiner that Tedeschi meets the limitations of
claim 4. The Examiner made findings that the special head 4, slider 26,
plate 28, and extension 30 of Tedeschi together constitute an end cap and
Appellant has not disputed this finding. Rather, Appellant disputes that
Tedeschi’s end caps have blade extensions that mate with a cavity of the
lock bar casing because Appellant argues that “extension 30 does not engage
a cavity within the lock bar casing, but instead engages little walls 3e.” App.
Br. 5. We do not agree with Appellant that the H-shaped space, within the
flap section 3 as shown in Figure 3 of Tedeschi and into which the H-shaped
extension 30 is inserted, does not constitute a cavity with which the
extension 30 mates.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tedeschi.
Issue 3 - Claim 9
Appellant contends that Tedeschi fails to teach the claimed channels
of the lock bars because the outer surface of strips 10, 11 do not have
channels for housing the blade extensions, but rather have ribs 10b, 11b for
retaining the strips 10, 11 within the walls 3a, 3b, respectively. App. Br. 6.
The Examiner’s position is that Tedeschi’s strips 10, 11 are lock bars
having channels formed by the saw tooth ribs 10b, 11b on the outer surface
thereof and having channels disposed between the ribs 10b, 11b as shown in
Figure 7. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

10
We agree with the Appellant that Tedeschi fails to teach the claimed
channels of the lock bars because Tedeschi’s channels, as shown in Figure 7,
clearly do not meet the claim language of being offset as recited in claim 9.
Indeed, the channels, as pointed to by arrows in the Examiner’s annotated
reproduction of Tedeschi’s Figure 7 on the bottom of page 5 of the
Examiner’s Answer, are clearly directly across from each other and
therefore, are not offset.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tedeschi.
Issue 4 - Claim 11
Appellant contends that “Tedeschi utterly fails to teach the claimed
cassette housing.” App. Br. 6. Appellant also contends that the Examiner
has not pointed out where a cassette housing is taught in Tedeschi and that
with respect to the rejection of claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tedeschi in view of Hammond, the Examiner admits that
Tedeschi does not disclose a cassette housing. See App. Br. 6 and Ans. 3.
The Examiner’s position is that the claim merely refers to the cassette
housing in functional language in line 2 (i.e., “for retraction into and
extension from a cassette housing”) and line 4 (i.e., “for retracting and
extending the screen into and out of the cassette housing”). Ans. 6. The
Examiner concludes that “it is immaterial as to whether Tedeschi discloses
the use of a housing.” Id.
We note that claim 11 does not recite the structure of a cassette
housing, but rather claim 11 calls for the screen to have the capability of
being retracted into and extended out of a cassette housing. Tedeschi meets
the language of claim 11 because the roll-up curtain 1 is readily capable of
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

11
being retracted into and extended out of a cassette housing since the strips
10, 11, walls 3a, 3b, and septum 3c provide structure for performing a
retraction and extension of the curtain 1 and a person of ordinary skill in the
art would understand that such a retraction and extension would be into and
out of a cassette housing located at the top portion (not shown) of the
window opening 2.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tedeschi.
Issue 5 - Claim 24
Appellant contends that strips 10, 11 of Tedeschi are retained in the
lock bar casing 3a, 3b, 3c via ribs 10b, 11b, and not via a force exerted by
the biased lock bar casing engaging the lock bars as they are extracted from
the lock bar casing due to tension forces. App. Br. 6. Appellant also
contends that Figure 7 of Tedeschi clearly shows ribs 10b, 11b “would
actually tend to separate strips 10, 11 as tension is placed on the screen,
thereby reducing the force retaining the screen between the strips.” Id.
In the Response to Argument section of the Examiner’s Answer, the
Examiner posits that the Appellant’s argument concerning placing tension
on the screen is based upon conjecture because “there is nothing to indicate
that as tension is placed on the screen the force retaining the screen between
the strips [is] reduced.” Ans. 6.
Although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that Appellant’s
argument is speculative, nonetheless, we note that the Examiner’s rejection
on page 3 of the Examiner’s Answer does not make any findings with
respect to whether a tension of the sheet of screen increases a force retaining
the sheet of screen between the first and second lock bars. Accordingly, we
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

12
find the Examiner’s rejection is not supported by facts, and thus, cannot
stand.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tedeschi.
Rejection of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedeschi

Issue 6 – Claim 8
Appellant contends that “the Examiner has failed to show where the
claimed plurality of rods are taught, thus failing to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness.” App. Br. 7. Appellant also contends that the
Examiner has not cited any secondary references as evidence that such
elongated rods are know in the relevant art, or to support a conclusion that
their use would have been obvious.
The Examiner’s position is that Tedeschi does not disclose a plurality
of rods. However, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tedeschi by a duplication of
parts so as to have a plurality of the existing rods to form the corrugated
surface. Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner that a mere duplication of the teeth 10a,
11a of Tedeschi would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary
skill in the art yielding the predictable result of better securement of the
curtain 1 between the strips 10, 11.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedeschi.
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

13
Rejection of claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedeschi in view of Hammond

Claims 12, 14 and 15
The Examiner rejected claims 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedeschi in view of Hammond. Although
Appellant states that “[Appellant] hereby appeals the final rejection of each
of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-15, and 21-29 (App. Br. 2), Appellant presents no
arguments of error regarding the rejection of claims 12, 14, and 15 (App. Br.
8-9). As such, Appellant has waived any argument regarding the rejection
of claims 12, 14, and 15, and we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims.
Issue 7 - Claim 13
Appellant contends that neither Tedeschi nor Hammond teach the
claimed female indentation on an outer end of the pull bar for mating with a
male protrusion on the bottom rail. App. Br. 8. Appellant also contends that
Tedeschi teaches a seat 12 for receiving a brush, but that the seat 12 is not
used to secure the lock bar as claimed. Id. Appellant also contends that the
grooves 86 of Hammond could not be combined with the casing of Tedeschi
and that the combination of Tedeschi and Hammond would not have been
obvious because Tedeschi teaches away from such a connection by
disclosing latches 17 for securing the screen. App. Br. 8-9.
The Examiner’s position is that Appellant’s arguments are not
convincing since claim 13 merely refers to the male protrusion in functional
language so that it is only necessary that the female indentation 12 of
Tedeschi be capable of mating with a male protrusion. Ans. 7. The
Examiner also posits that Tedeschi’s female indentation 12 is clearly capable
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

14
of mating with a male protrusion. Id. The Examiner also posits that
“Hammond discloses that it is well known in the pull screen art to use
female and male protrusions 70, 86, 82 and the use of such a feature for its
explicit purpose of fastening yields a predictable result.” Id. In response to
Appellant’s arguments concerning latches 17, the Examiner posits that claim
13 “does not preclude the presence of the latches 17 as disclosed by
Tedeschi.” Id.
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 must rest on a factual basis. In
making such a rejection, the examiner has the initial duty of supplying the
requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts that the invention is
patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
Here, the Examiner has failed to show how the teachings of
Hammond can be used to modify the pull screen of Tedeschi. Although we
agree with the Examiner that Hammond discloses female and male
protrusions 70, 86, 82, the Examiner has failed to show why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would choose a female protrusion located on the end
of a pull bar, as called for by claim 13, rather than a male protrusion 70 that
mates with a female indentation 86, as taught by Hammond in Figures 4 and
7.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedeschi in view
of Hammond.
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

15
Rejection of claims 21-23 and 25-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedeschi in view of Johnson

Issue 8 - Claim 21
Appellant contends that both Tedeschi and Johnson fail to teach the
claimed lips and the lock bars not protruding through the opening. App. Br.
9. Appellant also contends that this is shown by Figures 3 and 7 of Tedeschi
wherein the strips 10, 11 are completely uncovered by the casing and extend
at least as far as the upper ends of walls 3a and 3b. Id.
The Examiner’s position is that Tedeschi does not disclose its lock bar
casing as having opposing lips, that Johnson discloses a pull screen
apparatus comprising a lock bar 3 or 30 and a lock bar casing 4 having lips
11 or 34/35, and that “to incorporate this teaching into the pull screen
apparatus of Tedeschi for the purpose of enhancing the securement of the
screen would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 3.
On page 8 of the Answer, the Examiner repeats what Johnson discloses and
states that the lock bars do not protrude through the opening of the opposing
lips. Ans. 8.
Although we agree that one of ordinary skill in the art looking at the
Johnson’s figures would interpret Johnson to disclose an opening between
lips, the Examiner’s rationale is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. One of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Tedeschi
with Johnson’s lips since the lock bars 10, 11 of Tedeschi already have lips
at the top of walls 3a, 3b which mate with upper saw-tooth ribs 10b, 11b and
the lower saw-tooth ribs 10b, 11b mate with the recesses in the inner side of
walls 3b, 3a so as to provide securement.
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

16
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedeschi and
Johnson. Since the rejection of claim 22 is based upon the same insufficient
prima facie case of obviousness as dependent claim 21, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Tedeschi and Johnson.
Issue 9 – Claim 23
Appellant contends that Tedeschi and Johnson both fail to teach lock
bars having rounded ends proximate an opening of the lock bar casing,
whereby an extraction force pinches the lock bars together.
According to the Examiner’s rejection on page 3 of the Examiner’s
Answer, the Examiner’s position is that Tedeschi does not disclose its lock
bar casing as having lips and lock bars with rounded ends, but that Johnson
discloses a pull screen apparatus having a lock bar 3 or 30 with rounded
ends which cooperate with lips 11 or 34/35 of the lock bar casing 4. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to incorporate the teachings of Johnson into the pull screen of
Tedeschi for the purpose of enhancing the securement of the screen.
We do not agree with the Examiner that Johnson discloses a lock bar
with a rounded end proximate an opening as required by claim 23. In
Johnson’s Figure 7 embodiment, although the bar 30 is round in cross-
section, it does not have a rounded end. In none of Johnson’s Figure 3,
Figure 4 or Figure 9 embodiments, is it clear from the drawings or the
textual descriptions that the bottom slat or stick 3 (lock bar) has rounded
ends.
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

17
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedeschi and
Johnson.
Issue 10 – Claim 25
Appellant contends that the exclusive claim language of “consisting
of” precludes the use of Tedeschi as a reference.
The Examiner’s position is that the combination of Tedeschi and
Johnson discloses the structure recited in claim 25. The Examiner is not
convinced by Appellant’s arguments that no embodiment of Tedeschi shows
only the casing, first and second lock bars, and end caps because in the
Response to Argument section at page 8 of the Examiner’s Answer, the
Examiner states that “to have eliminated an element of the Tedeschi
reference along with its function while the remaining elements function as
intended is within the purview of the artisan of ordinary skill in the art
inasmuch as this yields nothing more than a predictable result.”
The transitional phrase “consisting of” excludes any element, step, or
ingredient not specified in the claim. In re Gray, 53 F.2d 520, 521 (CCPA
1931).2
We do not agree with the Examiner that eliminating elements of
Tedeschi would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the
Examiner has not proposed to modify Tedeschi by the elimination of parts.

2 See also Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948)
(“consisting of” defined as “closing the claim to the inclusion of materials
other than those recited except for impurities ordinarily associated
therewith.”).

Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

18
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedeschi and
Johnson. Since claims 26-29 are either directly or indirectly dependent upon
claim 25, these claims stand or fall with claim 25 and thus, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tedeschi and Johnson.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in interpreting Tedeschi to disclose a lock
bar casing biased toward a closed position as recited in claim 3.
The Examiner did not err in determining that Tedeschi discloses a
blade extension connected to a lower surface of the cap head and mating
with a cavity within said lock bar casing as recited in claim 4.
The Examiner erred in determining that Tedeschi discloses first and
second lock bars having offsetting channels as recited in claim 9.
The Examiner did not err in concluding that claim 11 is anticipated by
Tedeschi because the screen only need be capable of retracting into a
cassette housing.
The Examiner erred in interpreting Tedeschi to disclose a tension of
the sheet of screen which increases a force retaining the sheet of screen
between the first and second lock bars as recited in claim 24.
The Examiner did not err in concluding that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tedeschi by a
duplication of parts to have a series of elongated rods forming a corrugated
surface as recited in claim 8.
The Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Tedeschi and Hammond to
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

19
include a female indentation on an outer surface of the pull bar as recited in
claim 13.
The Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Tedeschi
and Johnson render obvious first and second lock bars not protruding
through the opening between the lips as recited in claim 21.
The Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tedeschi by the teachings of
Johnson so that the lock bar casing has lips defining an opening and the first
and second lock bars have rounded ends proximate the opening of the lock
bar casing to meet the recitations of claim 23.
The Examiner erred in concluding that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to modify Tedeschi by the teachings of Johnson
to arrive at a screen pull bar consisting of only a casing, first and second
lock bars, and end caps as recited in claim 25.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of: (1) claims 1, 3, 4, and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tedeschi; (2) claim 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedeschi; and (3) claims 12, 14, and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedeschi and Hammond.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of: (1) claims 9 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tedeschi; (2) claim 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedeschi and Hammond; and (3) claims 21-23
and 25-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tedeschi and
Johnson.
Appeal 2009-007735
Application 11/300,734

20
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls

WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP
CIRA CENTRE, 12th FLOOR
2929 ARCH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104-2891