Appeal No. 2002-0070
Application No. 09/537,949
Appellant’s invention pertains to a support pillow “in kit form”1 (claims 20, 22-25, 39 and
40) and to a method for storing a curved support pillow (claims 26-30). An understanding of
appellant’s invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 20 and 26, which appear in
the Appendix to appellant’s brief.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Fraser 2,995,845 Aug. 15, 1961
Blais 3,796,304 Mar. 12, 1974
Matthews 5,261,134 Nov. 16, 1993
Redewill 5,313,678 May 24, 1994
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are before us for review:
(1) claims 20, 22, 24 and 25, rejected as being unpatentable over Matthews in view of Blais;
(2) claims 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 39 and 40, rejected as being unpatentable over Matthews in
view of Blais and Fraser; and
(3) claim 28, rejected as being unpatentable over Matthews in view of Blais, Fraser and
Redewill.
Reference is made to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 12) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 13) for the respective positions of appellant and the examiner regarding the merits of these
rejections.
1The preamble of claims 20 and 39 state that the claims are directed to “A support pillow
in kit form.”
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007