Appeal No. 2003-0013
Application No. 09/569,539
supporting one or more persons and a pair of suspension members 7
for suspending the seat therefrom, with each suspension member
including a coil spring 8 imparting resilience to the suspension
member. The examiner concedes that Ayrolles does not disclose the
specifics of the coil springs set forth in the last paragraph of
claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, which calls for each
coil spring to define first and second zones of differing initial
spring constant, with the first zone being formed of coils
providing a first initial spring constant when the coils are
initially stretched, and with the second zone being formed of coils
providing a second initial spring constant substantially greater
than the first initial spring constant when the coils are initially
stretched. The examiner turns to Boudreau for a teachings of this
claim limitation.
Boudreau pertains to children’s bouncers and similar spring-
mounted toys, and more particularly to a spring connection assembly
for such toys. As explained in the “Background” section of
Boudreau’s specification, prior art bouncers were found to be
deficient in that they exhibited somewhat uneven bouncing
characteristics due to the way the ends of the suspension springs
were connected to the toy and the toy support, and in that the ends
of the suspension springs could become detached from their
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007