Ex Parte SPINKS et al - Page 6




              Appeal No. 2003-0683                                                                 Page 6                
              Application No. 09/319,680                                                                                 


                     beneath the weight of the person seated thereon, the shock therefore being                          
                     directly transmitted to the person with consequent discomfort.                                      
                            In the present case the total collapse of the cushion under such                             
                     circumstance is prevented by the resilient reinforcement of the said springs 1 for                  
                     a part of their length in such manner that after the primary springs 1 have been                    
                     compressed to a certain extent the reinforcement will come into operation,                          
                     thereby increasing the proportion of force necessary for the further compression                    
                     of the cushion.  The most convenient form of such resilient reinforcement are                       
                     secondary springs 6 substantially shorter than the primary springs, although, for                   
                     example, pads of porous rubber or the like may be used for a similar purpose if                     
                     desired.  These springs 6 may be concentrically arranged within the springs 2, or                   
                     may be integral therewith as indicated in Fig. 4 whereby the primary springs 2                      
                     are practically self reinforced.                                                                    
                            7  are fabric pockets surrounding the reinforcing springs 6 and preventing                   
                     noise, which may be caused by contact between the primary and secondary                             
                     springs, while also having as one of their objects to retain the said secondary                     
                     springs in a state of partial compression, if so desired, in order to increase their                
                     efficient operation.                                                                                


                     The appellants argue throughout both briefs that Fischmann does not disclose                        
              that his secondary spring 6 is freely movable within the primary spring 2 from one end                     
              of the primary spring 2 to the other end of the primary spring 2.  We agree.  In our view,                 
              the examiner's position (answer, pp. 3-5) that Fischmann's secondary spring 6 is                           
              inherently freely movable within the primary spring 2 from one end of the primary spring                   
              2 to the other end of the primary spring 2 is shear speculation, not the natural result                    
              flowing from the disclosure of Fischmann.  While Fischmann does not specifically                           
              disclose any connection preventing the secondary spring 6 from freely moving within                        
              the primary spring 2 from one end of the primary spring 2 to the other end of the                          







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007