Appeal No. 2004-1317
Application No. 10/143,377
Appealed claims 12-15 and 23-25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of
Wunderlich.
In accordance with the grouping of claims set forth at
page 6 of appellants' Brief, claims 12, 23 and 25 stand or fall
together. Appellants have presented separate arguments for
claims 13, 14, 15 and 24.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer.
Kelly, as explained by the examiner, discloses providing a
web of insulator material to spring units for mattresses, etc.,
and permanently securing the insulator material with hog rings or
other linking means that were known in the art (see column 3,
lines 53-63). As appreciated by the examiner, Kelly does not
disclose the claimed step of roll-packing the spring units into a
state of partial compression. However, we fully concur with the
examiner that Wunderlich evidences the obviousness of doing so.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007