Appeal No. 2000-0086
Application No. 08/831,603
points. Accordingly, it is our finding that the Kliesrath
figures 7 and 8 embodiment is anticipatory of appellants' claim
26. Consequently, we will affirm the section 103 rejection of
claim 26, and the claims falling therewith, namely, 27-32, 34-40,
42-49, 51-59, 61-70, 72-78, and 80, anticipation being the
epitome of obviousness. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794,
215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982) quoting In re Pearson, 494 F.2d
1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974) (a lack of novelty in
the claimed subject matter, e.g., as evidenced by a complete
disclosure of the invention in the prior art, is the "ultimate or
epitome of obviousness").
With respect to claims 33, 50, 60, and 71, the examiner has
cited Kintner for the teaching of making V-shaped cuts at the
corner of bedding to better fit the bedding to a bed. We are in
agreement that it would have been obvious, at the time of
appellants' invention to utilize V-shaped cuts in the corner of
Kliesrath's quilt to provide a better fit.
Appellants argue that Kliesrath's quilt is not inflatable.
We disagree. It is quite apparent that the bag of Kliesrath is
expanded to the condition shown in the figures by inflowing air.
This bag is inflatable much as a tire or the like is inflatable.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007