Ex Parte Lin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2016

13042717 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/042,717 03/08/2011
23464 7590 02/26/2016
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
P.O. BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tzong-Fu Lin
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0069735-000052 7488
EXAMINER
SHABLACK, JOHNNIE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TZONG-FU LIN
Appeal2013-006664 1
Application 13/042,7172
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES A. WORTH, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Appellant's representative appeared for oral hearing in this appeal on
February 18, 2016.
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Feb. 28, 2013) and Reply Br. ("Reply Br.," filed Apr. 22, 2013), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 29, 2013) and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 25, 2012).
2 Appellant identifies Whole Space Industries, LTD, as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2013-006664
Application 13/042,717
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention "relates to window coverings[,] such as
Roman shades." Spec. 1.
Claims 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A window covering comprising:
a first rail;
window covering material positioned adjacent to the first
rail, the window covering material moveable from a retracted
position to an extended position, the window covering material
having a top edge and a lower edge below the top edge, a front
side and a rear side opposite the front side;
a liner positioned adjacent to the rear side of the window
covering material, the liner moveable from a retracted position
to an extended position, the liner attached to at least one of the
window covering material and the first rail to define at least one
cavity within the liner;
at least one ladder attached to the liner and positioned in
the at least one cavity, the at least one ladder having a plurality
of vertically spaced rungs, each of the rungs of the at least one
ladder having a front facing toward the rear side of the window
covering material and a rear opposite the front of the rungs;
a first lift cord extending from the first rail to a position
adjacent to the bottom edge of the window covering material to
move the window covering material from the extended position
to the retracted position, a portion of the first lift cord extending
through the at least one cavity, the first lift cord passing
adjacent to the at least one ladder such that the first lift cord
passes over the rungs of the at least one ladder such that the
first lift cord alternates from passing behind and in front of
successive rungs; and
a second lift cord extending from the first rail to a
position adjacent to the bottom edge of the window covering
material to move the window covering material from the
extended position to the retracted position, a portion of the
second lift cord extending through the at least one cavity, the
2
Appeal2013-006664
Application 13/042,717
second lift cord passing adjacent to the at least one ladder such
that the second lift cord passes over the rungs of the at least one
ladder such that the second lift cord alternates from passing
behind and in front of successive rungs.
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over LeBlanc (US 2006/0060308 Al, pub. Mar. 23, 2006), Rosen (US
3,160,202, iss. Dec. 8, 1964), and Anthony (WO 2010/021841 Al, pub. Feb.
25, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5-16
The Examiner relies on LeBlanc as disclosing substantially all of the
elements recited in independent claim 1. Final Act. 2--4. The Examiner
acknowledges that LeBlanc fails to disclose "at least one ladder attached to
the liner and positioned in the at least one cavity," as recited in claim 1. Id.
at 4. But the Examiner finds that Anthony discloses a window covering with
a lift cord that passes through rings and a ladder. Id. at 4--5. The Examiner
concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art ... to provide LeBlanc with at least one ladder attached to the liner in
order to protect the lift cord and prevent excessive extension and looping of
the lift cord, as taught by Anthony." Id. at 5. Alternatively, the Examiner
determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
make the proposed combination "to retain the lift cord closely [sic] to the
window covering." Ans. 9-10 (citing Anthony i-f 42).
3
Appeal2013-006664
Application 13/042,717
Anthony discloses a window covering having a ladder configured to
prevent exposed lift cords from forming loops large enough to strangle or
otherwise entrap children. See Anthony, i-fi-12, 39, and 44. In contrast,
LeBlanc discloses a window covering having a lift cord positioned between
the liner and shade. LeBlanc, i1 41, Fig. 3.
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have been motivated to provide LeBlanc's window
covering with Anthony's ladder, at least because LeBlanc's lift cords are not
exposed. Appeal Br. 13-14; see also Reply Br. 3--4. For example, the
Examiner does not identify any apparent benefit with preventing excessive
extension and looping of the lift cord or with retaining the lift cord close to
the window covering, given the cord is secured between the liner and shade.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) of independent claim 1. For the same reason, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 5-16, which
depend from claim 1.
Independent claims 2 and 17 and dependent claims 3, 4, and 18-20
Independent claims 2 and 1 7 include language substantially similar to
the language of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 2 and 17, and
claims 3, 4, and 18-20, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons set
forth above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
4