Ex Parte Osinga

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2007

10171358 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding precedent
of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte ANNE J. OSINGA
___________

Appeal No. 2007-0994
Application No. 10/171,358
Technology Center 3600
___________

Decided: July 27, 2007
___________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and HUBERT C. LORIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 36-38, 40, 47, and
48. Claims 34, 35, and 66 are canceled. Claims 2, 3, 6-33, 39, 49, and 51-65 stand
withdrawn from consideration, and claims 41-46, 50, 67, and 68 stand allowed.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
Appeal 2007-0994
Application 10/171,358
Appellant claims an equalizing connector for a plurality of lift cords which
attach a foot rail to a head rail in a window covering. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.

1. The combination of a pull cord, lift cords, and connector for a window
covering assembly, the combination comprising: a pull cord, a plurality of lift
cords, and a connector including a plurality of connecting members, each
connecting member having secured thereto no more than a single lift cord so as to
independently secure said no more than one lift cord of the plurality of lift cords to
said connector whereby each connecting member is disassociated from all other lift
cords, said connector further including a means for securing a pull cord to said
connector.

The reference of record relied upon by the Examiner as evidence of
obviousness is:
Judkins US 5,560,414 Oct. 1, 1996
Claims 1, 4, 5, 36-38, 40, 47, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Judkins.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following represents our findings of fact with respect to the scope and
content of the prior art reference of Judkins and the differences between the prior
art and the claimed invention. Judkins discloses a combination of a pull cord, lift
cords, and connector for a window assembly. More specifically, Judkins discloses
a bottom rail 52 and a head rail 51, which have the window covering 53 extending
therebetween. Operating cords 60 are used to shorten the distance between the
bottom rail and head rail spanned by the window covering 53 to raise the shade.
Operating cords 60 come together in the connector 61 which has a pull cord 62
extending therefrom. The operating or lift cords 60 have a bead or ferrule crimped
2
Appeal 2007-0994
Application 10/171,358
on or otherwise secured to their ends 60a enlarging the ends and preventing them
from being pulled through the slots 75a and 75b between pie-shaped jaw members
75 (Judkins, col. 4, ll. 42-50). Judkins is concerned with a possibility that children
may be strangled by the lift cords 60. Thus, Judkins provides connector 61 that
will separate as shown in Figure 10 when the forces on the lift cords 60 have
lateral components.
ISSUE
The sole issue for our consideration in this appeal is the prima facie
obviousness of claims 1, 4, 5, 36-38, 40, 47, and 48.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of
skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). See
also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the sequence of these
questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue
to define the inquiry that controls.”) In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the
need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found
in the prior art,” id. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in
3
Appeal 2007-0994
Application 10/171,358
which a patent might be determined to be obvious. In particular, the Supreme
Court emphasized that “the principles laid down in Graham reaffirmed the
‘functional approach’ of Hotchkiss, 11 How. 248.” KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1739, 82
USPQ2d at 1395 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12 (1966)
(emphasis added)), and reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. The Court
explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations
of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a
person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same
reason, if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.
Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The operative question in this “functional
approach” is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id.
ANALYSIS
Appellant chooses to argue only the independent claims 1 and 36.
Therefore, we hold that claims 4 and 5 will stand or fall with claim 1 and claims
37, 38, 40, 47 and 48 stand or fall with claim 36.
We will affirm the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5 for two reasons.
We agree with the Examiner that Judkins discloses lift cords of from 2 to 8
4
Appeal 2007-0994
Application 10/171,358
or more in number. We further agree that the three cord-contacting portions of jaw
edges 75a and 75b can each be considered a connecting member, inasmuch as they
serve to secure the cords into the connector. As argued by the Examiner, when
only two lift cords are present, each cord could be associated with its own pair of
jaw edges 75a, 75b, and this pair forms a connecting member that would be
disassociated from the other connecting members--another set of jaws 75a and 75b
which capture the other lift cord.
Secondly, the bead or ferrule 60a of Judkins corresponds to Appellant’s
claimed connecting member. Therefore, in installations of even eight lift cords,
each connecting member, i.e., each bead or ferrule, is used to independently secure
the associated lift cord while each connecting member or bead is disassociated
from all other lift cords. This is the second manner in which Judkins satisfies the
limitations of independent claim 1.
Turning to claim 36, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 36 and the
claims that depend therefrom. While Judkins discloses multiple embodiments,
none of the pivoting side members of Judkins, which could be considered
peripheral members, receive and are secured to no more than one lift cord and are
disassociated from other lift cords. Furthermore, none of these side peripheral
members appears to have a bore therethrough if the bore in Judkins is considered
as the cut-out on the top of the peripheral members through which the cords
extend. The cut-out is bounded by more than one peripheral member.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has established the prima facie
obviousness of claims 1, 4, and 5 which has not been rebutted by Appellant. The
Examiner has not established the prima facie obviousness of claims 36-38, 40, 47,
and 48. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
5
Appeal 2007-0994
Application 10/171,358
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

JRG

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

6