Appeal No. 2004-1089
Application No. 09/770,302
grouped claims 21 through 28 together for purposes of the appeal
(see page 4 in the brief), thereby allowing claims 22 through 28
to stand or fall with parent claim 21 in accordance with 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7).
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 29 through 32 and
35 through 40 as being unpatentable over Hagelfeldt in view of
Metzler
Independent claim 29 recites a collapsible cot requiring,
inter alia, the flexible sheet material of the side walls to be
“physical extensions” of the flexible sheet material attached to
the base frame. Acknowledging that Hagelfeldt does not meet this
limitation, the examiner turns to Metzler.
Metzler discloses a sheet for use with beds having
vertically adjustable guardrails along its sides. The sheet 1
includes a central horizontal portion 2 for covering a mattress 9
and left and right pad sections 3 and 4 for draping over and
attaching to the guardrails 10. According to Metzler, “[s]ince
the left and right pad sections are continuous with the bottom
horizontal sheet, the gap which normally occurs between the
mattress and the guardrail is eliminated, thus eliminating the
possibility that a patient’s limbs may become lodged between the
mattress and the guardrail or pads” (column 1, lines 53 through
58).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007