Appeal No. 98-0054
Application No. 08/438,888
firmness. Thus, neither Stumpf ‘984 nor Forwood suggests
the concept of providing a single unitary core with coil
springs of different compressive strengths. The other
cited references also lack a teaching or suggestion of
this feature.
Absent a suggestion of providing coil springs of
different compressive strengths in the same unitary
mattress core, the only way the examiner could have
arrived at his conclusion of obviousness with regard to
the appealed claims is through hindsight based on
appellant’s teachings. Hindsight analysis, however, is
clearly improper. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 443, 230
USPQ 313, 316 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Imperato,
486 F.2d 585, 587, 179 USPQ 730, 732 (CCPA 1973)
(“However, the mere fact that those disclosures can be
combined does not make the combination obvious unless the
art also contains something to suggest the desirability
of the combination.”).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007