Appeal No. 2000-0322 Page 7
Application No. 08/855,921
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 12-15) that the applied
prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter. The
appellants state that Bubien fails to disclose that for which
it was cited by the examiner. The appellants then
specifically point out that Bubien fails to disclose or
suggest reducing the volume of the padding or any of the
furniture cushions.
The examiner responded (answer, p. 4) to the above-noted
argument of the appellants by admitting that there is "no
mention of reducing the volume of the padded surfaces [in
Bubien]." Nevertheless, the examiner then concludes that this
"does not mean that some cramming or squeezing of the padded
surfaces, which would result in a reduced volume of the padded
surfaces, was not needed."
All the claims under appeal recite in one manner or
another reduced volume padding. However, this limitation is
not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, we
agree with the appellants that there is no teaching or
suggestion in Bubien of reducing the volume of his padding or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007