Appeal No. 2005-1471 Page 4
Application No. 10/028,833
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The obviousness rejection based on Marra and Williams
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 38 and 65 to 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Marra in view of Williams.
Marra's invention has particular application to hospital beds and relates to an
apparatus for covering the rails of same in a manner providing optimum safety, comfort
and convenience for both the patient and the nurse or other attendant. Referring now to
Figures 1-4, a hospital bed 10 having a wheeled bed frame 12 is illustrated. Hospital
bed 10 additionally includes a pair of bed rails 14, 16 which are connected to the bed
frame 12 by connector elements 18 which, as is conventional, allow movement of the
bed rails relative to the bed frame from the vertical position illustrated to a lowered
position. Each bed rail is in the form of a framework defining an opening 22 and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007