Appeal 2006-3343
Application 10/372,564
1 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
2 If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
3 ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
4 devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
5 application is beyond his or her skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
6 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
7 The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
8 likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
9 KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
10 The intended use of an apparatus is not a relevant limitation with
11 respect to the patentability of the structure defined in an apparatus claim. In
12 re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959, 177 USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA 1973).
13
14 ANALYSIS
15 I. The Rejection of Claims 1-9 and 11-14 Under 35 USC §103(a) as
16 being unpatentable over Chamberlain in view of Denesuk.
17 The Examiner has found that Chamberlain teaches a disposable
18 contour sheet capable of being used with a pet mattress, the sheet being an
19 unbroken and unfolded seamless sheet of interfacing fabric. The sheet is
20 sized to cover completely an upper surface and sides of a mattress and to
21 partly cover a bottom surface. A strip of stretchable material is attached to a
22 periphery of the sheet. Finally, the Examiner has found that the sheet and
23 material of Chamberlain is disposable in that it can be thrown away after
24 repeated use. (Final Rejection, May 31, 2005, p. 2, ll. 10-17).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013