gives no hint or suggestion that the detected temperature is used to control the pump P or
otherwise control the flow of compressed air into the air cells 1b.
We find no suggestion in Yamada to modify Davis to provide a temperature detector
and control means for controlling the pump 4 of Davis depending on the detected tempe rature
as the examiner proposes (answer, pp. 4 and 8). Given the very contrary objectives of Davis
(to suction air away from the mattress surface to decrease temperature at the mattress sup port
surface and remove odors) and Yamada (to supply heated compressed air to air cells
supporting a patient in an operating room during an operation to maintain the patient’s b ody
temperature in the cold operating room), it is not readily apparent that Yamada would have
provided any suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air flow system of
Davis. Even assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation in
Yamada to provide temperature sensing means in Davis, we agree with the appellants that the
only use such a person would have gleaned from Yamada would have been as feedback for a
heating and/or cooling element to control the temperature of the mattress. Such a
modification, of course, could not result in the invention recited in claim 25, which calls for a
control unit that controls operation of said suction device depending upon the measured
temperature and controls temperature of air surrounding the individual lying on the bed in the
absence of further heating/cooling means.
In light of the above, we conclude that the combination of Davis and Yamada is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case that the subject matter of claim 25 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is therefore unnecessary for us to discuss the
declaration of Stefan Larrson submitted with the appellants’ brief. The rejection of claim 25, as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007