Appeal No. 2006-1667
Application No. 10/775,634
anticipation of the invention claimed in the appellant’s
claims 1-3 and 7-9.
Claims 13-18
The appellant argues, regarding claims 13-18, that Gordon’s
“mattress support at least must have a substantially convex
cross-sectional shape overall and maintain the convex cross-
sectional shape under the weight of the mattress and a person…”
(brief, pages 4-5). Those claims merely require that a
substantially convex shape is attained. They do not require that
the convex shape is maintained under the weight of either a
mattress or a person.
The appellant argues that claims 13-18 require that “the
apparatus must also support the majority of an area of the
mattress used by the person” (brief, page 5). Those claims are
open to the manner of use being lying on one’s side. The bladder
(24B) in Gordon’s figure 5 is shown as being sufficiently large
in relation to the size of the box spring (16) that it would
support the majority of an area of the mattress used by a person
lying on his or her side.
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the
examiner’s rejection of claims 13-18.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013