Appeal No. 2000-0322 Page 6
Application No. 08/855,921
The examiner's answer (p. 3) maintains the rejection of
all the independent claims on appeal (i.e., claims 1, 8 and
20) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bubien in
view of Dunbar for the reasons set forth in the final
rejection (pp. 2-3). In the final rejection, the examiner
determined that
(1) Bubien teaches a ready-to-assemble article of furniture
comprising an unassembled frame for the article of furniture,
padding which is adapted to form a cushion for the article of
furniture, reducing the volume of the padding and packaging
the reduced volume padding; (2) the only difference between
the claimed subject matter and Bubien being that Bubien does
not teach that the volume of the padding is reduced by vacuum
and compression packing; (3) Dunbar teaches vacuum and
compression packing of foam or open celled material that is
used in furniture construction; and (4) it would have been
obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the article of furniture, as taught by Bubien, to
include vacuumed and compressed packed foam material, as
taught by Dunbar.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007