Appeal No. 2000-0086
Application No. 08/831,603
portion. The examiner states that Kliesrath lacks only the
attachment of the base sheet and the overlying material sheet at
a plurality of locations. The examiner is further of the opinion
that Augustine teaches attaching the base sheet and overlying
sheet at a plurality of locations. Therefore, the examiner has
concluded that it would have been obvious to have provided
Kliesrath's flat bag 56 with a series of tubes to better keep it
a relatively flat structure as opposed to ballooning up when
inflated.
Claims 33, 50, 60, and 71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kliesrath in view of Augustine and
Kintner. According to the examiner, Kintner shows making V-shape
cuts at the corner of bedding to better fit it to a bed.
Therefore, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to have done the same with Kliesrath's blanket to obtain a
similar advantage.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light
of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As a result
of this review, we have determined that the applied prior art
establishes the unpatentability of all claims on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007