BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a bed provided with a suction device for drawing air
through the bed and a control system for controlling the suction device to control the
temperature of an individual lying on the bed. A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in
the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
Applied Prior Art
Davis et al. (Davis) 1,142,876 Jun. 15, 1915
Maddison 2,462,984 Mar. 1, 1949
Yonkers 5,730,120 Mar. 24, 1998
Yamada 5,881,410 Mar. 16, 1999
The Rejections
Claims 25-30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 43, 44 and 481 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Davis in v iew of Yamada.
Claims 31 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Davis in view of Yamada and M addison.
Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in
view of Yamada and Yonkers.
1 The examiner’s omission of claim 48 in the statement of the rejection in both the final rejection (mailed August
24, 2004) and answer (mailed September 22, 2005) appears to have been an inadvertent oversight. It is clear
from the discussion of claim 48 in the explanation of the rejection that claim 48 stands rejected as being
unpatentable over Davis in view of Yamada.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007