Appeal No. 2005-1471 Page 12
Application No. 10/028,833
In this rejection (final rejection, p. 5), the examiner determined that it would have
been obvious to the skilled artisan to have upgraded the controls of the Mitchell bed
side rail structure with a microprocessor control that includes a display screen that
provides variable graphical information as taught by Williams. The motivation would
have been to provide the benefits of a programmable control unit for the bed, in which
the control unit is essentially a microcomputer that is easily operated and controlled by a
user.
We agree with the appellants' argument (brief, pp. 8-9; reply brief, p. 7) that the
applied prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter. In our view, the teachings
of Williams would have suggested replacing the bed side rail controls of Mitchell with an
articulated control panel that includes a display screen as taught by Williams. However,
such a modification of Mitchell does not result in the subject matter of claim 38.
Specifically, the applied prior art does not suggest a display screen coupled to a
movable siderail of a bed and a processor in communication with the display screen, the
processor being configured to provide variable graphical information to the display
screen. In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Mitchell in the manner proposed
by the examiner to arrive at the claimed subject matter stems from impermissible
hindsight knowledge derived from the appellants' own disclosure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007