Appeal No. 2006-1922 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/207,519
From our review of Kostial, we find that the reference
discloses the bolster filling to be treated with an odor
retarding agent such as cedar (para. 37). However, the reference
is silent as to how the bolster filling will be treated, and we
decline to speculate. In any event, the odor retarding agent is
on the bolster filling and is not disposed on the inner surface
of the face textile. We are not persuaded by the examiner’s
assertion (answer, page 4) that the odor retarding means of
Kostial does contact the inner surface of the cushion textile,
especially when an animal is resting on the bed. The examiner is
correct that when an animal is resting on the bed, the cedar
treatment on/in the bolster fillings will likely contact the
inner surface of the face textile. However, the claim requires a
layer disposed on the inner surface, which is not met by a
treated bolster filler contacting the inner surface.
In addition, from our review of Pearson, we find that the
reference is directed to garments for protection from toxic
chemicals and other substances such as might be used in
agricultural sprays (col. 1, lines 33-35). The reference is not
directed to retarding odors, and the only connection to
appellant’s invention is that the reference has activated
charcoal that is adhesively secured between two layers by an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007