Appeal No. 2001-2451
Application 09/157,705
ordinary foam cushioning plastics such as polyurethane foam do
not possess” (col. 1, ll. 59-64). Any teaching away from the
claimed subject matter must be considered in an obviousness
analysis. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130,
1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Although Wiegand teaches that the plastic
net will reinforce the polyethylene foam sheet (col. 2, ll.
54-60), the examiner has not presented any evidence or reasoning
why one of ordinary skill in this art would have expected the
rebonded polyurethane of Fracalossi to have sufficient strength
and rigidity, even in conjunction with plastic netting, to be
useful in the composite of Wiegand, especially in view of the
teaching away from conventional polyurethane foam in Wiegand.
Additionally, we note that Wiegand teaches that the plastic
netting will “tend to prevent any creeping of the [polyethylene]
sheet within the spring cushion assembly” (col. 2, ll. 57-59),
and the examiner has not stated why the foam layer of Quinn would
be necessary to keep the Wiegand pad from slipping during use.
Finally, we note that the examiner finds that Wiegand discloses
an outer layer of a cushioning material (such as a polyurethane
foam) may be bonded to the first major surface of the foam core
(Answer, sentence bridging pages 5-6, see col. 2, ll. 38-42).
However, claims 10-12 also require the pad of claim 1, including
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007