Appeal No. 97-3289
Application 08/550,895
different field of endeavor, it logically would have commended
itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem
because of the matter with which it deals. See In re Clay,
966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Brock is directed to a flame resistant blanket which, in
common with the appellants’ air mattress, comprises a
plurality of layers of plastic defining a core in which there
are a plurality of cell portions containing a gas such as air
(column 3, lines 4-15). As such, it is our view that Brock
would have commended itself to the attention of one working
with air mattresses, in that there is a commonality of
construction and the problems associated therewith, such as
flexibility and seam integrity. It therefore is our opinion
that Brock qualifies as analogous art under the second portion
of the Wood test.
Finally, the claims are directed to an inflatable
air mattress “for use in a foam support frame,” but the frame
is not claimed. Arguments based upon the failure of the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007