Appeal No. 1998-0030 Page 10
Application No. 08/151,960
The examiner determined (answer, pp. 3-4) that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to have employed the collapsible sidewall
teaching set forth in Frost in the construction of the
device of Van Romer, motivated by the unobstructed
interior space provided thereby.
We will not sustain this rejection since even if the
references were combined together as set forth by the
examiner, the combination would not arrive at the claimed
invention. In that regard, we note that neither Van Romer or
Frost disclose the claimed pocket formed in the wall (the wall
arising from the base) with the claimed spring truss fitted
within the pocket. Van Romer's upstanding walls 16, 18, 20,
22 do not include a pocket as recited in claims 1 and 8.
While Frost does disclose a spring truss (i.e., rings 15 and
16 and stays 17), the spring truss is not fitted within a
pocket formed in his wall (i.e., body portion 20).7
7Contrary to the examiner's view (answer, p. 4), fabric
strips 29 of Frost do not form a pocket as recited in claims 1
and 8 since the fabric strips 29 cover the stays 17 and thus
do not form a pocket in the body portion 20.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007