Ex Parte Ulatowski

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 17, 2013

11316074 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BOGDAN R. ULATOWSKI
____________

Appeal 2011-001166
Application 11/316,074
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bogdan R. Ulatowski (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20-22, which are all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2011-001166
Application 11/316,074

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates generally to vertical vane
blinds and more particularly to systems for mounting the endmost vanes in
the blind for proper positioning in extended and retracted positions of the
blind.” Spec. 1, ll. 11-13. Claim 20, reproduced below, is the sole
independent claim and is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
20. The combination of a covering for an architectural
opening and a support surface on which the covering is
mounted comprising in combination:
a substantially vertical support surface,
a covering for an architectural opening including:
a) a head rail having at least one end cap and
brackets for supporting said head rail on said support
surface in spaced relation thereto so as to define a gap
between said support surface and said headrail,
b) a plurality of vertically oriented main vanes and
first and second end vanes,
c) a control system having a plurality of carriers
suspending said main vanes from said head rail and for
moving said main vanes along said headrail, each carrier
supporting only one main vane,
d) a face sheet material interconnecting said main
vanes and said first and second end vanes,
e) said first end vane being formed by creasing
said face sheet material at a location between the closest
main vane and said second end vane and securing the
face sheet material to itself,
f) said second end vane being formed from said
face sheet material, and
g) a pivotal mounting system independently
mounting said first and second end vanes for pivotal
movement about vertical axes, said second end vane
adapted to extend completely from said headrail to said
support surface to cover said gap.
Appeal 2011-001166
Application 11/316,074

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite; and
2. Claims 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Swiszcz (US 6,076,588; iss. Jun. 20, 2000), Senesac
(US 2003/0178153A1; pub. Sep. 25, 2003), and Yalowega
(US 4,779,661; iss. Oct. 25, 1988).
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 20-22 as being indefinite because the
recitation in claim 20 of “the closest main vane” lacks antecedent basis.
Ans. 3. Appellant argues that claim 20 is not indefinite because the
recitation “is not necessarily referencing a particular element of the covering
but rather generally the main vane in the covering which is closest to the
first end vane.” App. Br. 6.
The failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not
always render a claim indefinite. In this case, prior to recitation of “the
closest main vane” the claim introduces “a plurality of vertically oriented
main vanes and first and second end vanes.” One skilled in the art would
understand “the closest main vane” when read in light of the remainder of
claim 20 to refer to the one of the plurality of main vanes that is the closest
to the first end vane. This understanding is supported by Appellant’s
Specification, which provides that “[a]t an intermediate location between the
second fixed endmost vane 52 and the closest carrier 24 of the covering, the
first fixed end vane 50 is formed by creasing the sheet material 34 and
Appeal 2011-001166
Application 11/316,074

4
folding it upon itself and securing the overlapping material to each other.”
Spec. 7, ll. 7-10; fig. 2. Claim 20 is not indefinite because the scope of the
claim is reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art when the claim is
read in light of the Specification. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claims 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Obviousness Rejection
Claim 20
The Examiner determined that Swiszcz discloses a covering having
main vanes 190, a fixed end vane 190b, and a moveable end vane 190a.
Ans. 4. The Examiner stated, “[a]s to the covering as having first and
second fixed and moveable end vanes, to have used a plurality of vanes in
addition to the existing vanes for their explicit purpose is nothing more than
duplicating known prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results.” Id. The Examiner found that “Senesac discloses a
covering comprising a vane having created looped portions 310, 312, 320,
324, 216, 326. . .” and that it would have been obvious to incorporate this
teaching into the covering of Swiszcz “for the purpose of aesthetics.” Id.
The Examiner further stated that “[a]s to the covering as comprising an end
vane which extends between the headrail and the support surface, note that
Yalowega discloses a covering comprising end vanes 22 which extend
between headrail 5 and the support surface . . . .” Id. The Examiner
concluded that incorporating the teaching of Yalowega into the covering of
Swiszcz “for the purpose of hiding the controls and the side of the covering
so as to present an aesthetically pleasing appearance would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id.
Appeal 2011-001166
Application 11/316,074

5
Appellant argues that Swiszcz “does not disclose the concept of
providing an end vane to cover the gap between a headrail and a support
surface.” App. Br. 8; see also id. at 4 (“[t]he covering of the Swiszcz et al.
patent would not cover a gap that might exist between a headrail and a
support surface if the headrail were mounted on the support surface in
spaced relationship therewith which is the issue addressed in the present
application”). This argument is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
rejection because, as described supra, the Examiner relied on Yalowega to
teach using end vanes to cover this gap.
Appellant argues that Yalowega “does not specifically address [a
system that might cover the gap between the headrail and a support surface]
nor does it disclose or suggest a continuity of such a vane with main vanes
utilized in a covering and additional vanes at the ends of the headrail as
through use of a face sheet material as in the present invention.” App. Br. 6;
see also id. at 8 (“[t]here is no suggestion in Yalowega for tying that vane to
other vanes in a covering particularly with a face sheet of material and
further by making the vane out of the face sheet material as now specifically
provided for in claim 20”).
As to Appellant’s argument that Yalowega does not specifically
address covering the gap between the headrail and a support surface, we
disagree. As the Examiner found (Ans. 4, 7), Yalowega discloses using
multiple end vanes adapted to be rotated at an angle to the blind track so as
“to cover controls of the vertical blind or the side of a window opening
adjacent the end of the blind track.” Yalowega, col. 1, ll. 26-29 and 54-60;
id. at col. 2, ll. 55-61; fig. 2. As such, we agree with the Examiner that
Appeal 2011-001166
Application 11/316,074

6
Yalowega discloses first and second end vanes adapted to cover a gap
between the headrail and the support surface.
As to Appellant’s argument that Yalowega’s end vanes are
independent of the main vanes and that Yalowega does not disclose or
suggest a continuity of such a vane with main vanes via face sheet material,
again this argument is not persuasive of error because the Examiner relies on
Swiszcz to teach end vanes which are operably connected to main vanes via
face sheet material. Ans. 7. Appellant’s arguments as to Swiszcz and
Yalowega fail to address the Examiner's rejection, which is based on a
determination of what would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art in view of the combined teachings of the prior art. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
426 (CCPA 1981) (citation omitted). The Examiner’s reasoning that using a
second end vane on each end similar to the end vanes already disclosed in
Swiszcz in order to cover the gap, as taught in Yalowega, is based on
rational underpinnings.
As to the Examiner’s reliance on Senesac, Appellant argues that the
rejection of claim 20 should be reversed because it based on a
mischaracterization of this reference. App. Br. 9; see also id. at 4-5 (arguing
that Senesac discloses “vanes 104 which are rigid or semi-rigid strips of
plastic or metal [¶ 0018], which are connected to a sheet of material having
loops therein”). Appellant reasons that since the sheet of material
interconnecting the vanes is not part of the vanes, Senesac does not disclose
Appeal 2011-001166
Application 11/316,074

7
vanes formed by creasing a face sheet material and securing it to itself. App.
Br. 5.
Claim 20 calls for “said first end vane being formed by creasing said
face sheet material at a location between the closest main vane and said
second end vane and securing the face sheet material to itself.” According
to the language of the claim, the first end vane comprises the face sheet
material. Appellant’s Specification describes that “the vanes themselves can
be formed in any manner but are interconnected along outer edges to the
sheet material, which at these locations define the face sheet material, either
as an integral extension from the vane . . . or as a connected extension from
the vane if the vanes were made from a different material than the face sheet
material.” Spec. 9, ll. 16-20. Based on this description, one having ordinary
skill in the art reading Appellant’s Specification would understand that the
end vanes can be comprised of two different materials, such as a base vane
material connected to the face sheet material. The claim language supports
this understanding that the end vanes comprise the face sheet material but do
not exclude end vanes made from face sheet material in addition to a
different material.
Senesac discloses end vanes 310, 312 formed of vane material 104
and having a vane cover 102 comprised of face sheet material 220, 222
attached thereto. Senesac, figs. 2, 3. The vane cover 102 includes pleats
320, and fasteners 202 attach the pleated vane cover 102 to the end vanes
310, 312. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “vane” as would
be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of Appellant’s
Specification, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Senesac’s
detachable vane cover 102, comprised of face sheet material 220, 222, in
Appeal 2011-001166
Application 11/316,074

8
combination with vane material 104, comprises a vane being formed by
creasing the face sheet material and securing the face sheet material to itself,
as called for in claim 20. For these reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Swiszcz, Senesac, and
Yalowega.
Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 20 and recites “wherein said pivotal
mounting system is mounted on said at least one end cap.” Appellant argues
that “[s]ince the prior art does not show a combination of a covering and a
support surface where the covering has a pivotal mounting system on its end
cap for supporting not only a first end vane, but also a second end vane with
the second end vane adapted to extend completely from the headrail to the
support surface to cover the gap, it is felt that claim 21 is also patentably
distinct from the prior art.” App. Br. 9-10.
It is uncontested that Swiszcz discloses a pivotal mounting system
(fixed vane mounting system 200) mounted on an end cap (194) for
pivotally mounting a first fixed end vane (190b). Ans. 4; App. Br. 4.
Appellant’s argument thus amounts to the same argument proffered for
reversal of the rejection of claim 20. For the same reasons discussed supra,
we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious in light of the
teachings of Yalowega to modify the system of Swiszcz to add a second end
vane pivotally mounted independently of the first end vane and adapted to
extend completely from the headrail to the support surface to cover the gap.
Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 20 and recites “wherein said first and
second end vanes are movable along said headrail and adapted to be
Appeal 2011-001166
Application 11/316,074

9
positioned adjacent to said at least one end cap such that said second end
vane extends completely from said headrail to said support surface to cover
said gap.” Appellant relies on the arguments made for reversal of the
rejection as to claim 20 and further argues that “the prior art certainly does
not show first or second end vanes which are movable along the headrail that
are also connected to the main vanes with the second movable end vane
covering the gap between the headrail and the support surface.” App.
Br. 10.
It is uncontested that Swiszcz discloses a first end vane 190a movable
along the headrail that is also connected to the main vanes 190 via face sheet
material 192. Ans. 4; App. Br. 4. Appellant’s argument amounts to the
same argument proffered for reversal of the rejection of claim 20. For the
same reasons discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that it would
have been obvious in light of the teachings of Yalowega to modify the
system of Swiszcz to add a second movable end vane pivotally mounted
independently of the first end vane and adapted to extend completely from
the headrail to the support surface to cover the gap.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 20-22.
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).
AFFIRMED

Klh