Appeal No. 2001-2451
Application 09/157,705
five layers, in combination with springs and a furniture cushion
(see claim 10 on appeal). Contrary to the examiner’s assertion
(Answer, page 10), Wiegand does not teach several layers of
cushioning material as required by these claims on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Brief
and Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the
reference evidence. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Wiegand in view of Fracalossi and Quinn.
E. Other Issues
Upon return of this application to the jurisdiction of the
examiner, the examiner and appellant should reconsider the
patentability of the claims in view of Burke, U.S. Patent No.
4,758,299, issued Jul. 19, 1988, previously made of record (see
Figure 2; col. 1, ll. 42-55; and col. 3, ll. 4-48).
F. Summary
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Lappala is affirmed. The rejection of claims 8-9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lappala is also affirmed.
The rejection of claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Lappala is reversed. The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007