Appeal No. 2006-0714 Page 2
Application No. 10/238,083
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a helical wire form coil and an innerspring. A
copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
Claim 1, which is representative of appellants’ invention, is reproduced infra in the
opinion section of this decision.
The Applied Prior Art
Flesher et al. (Flesher) 4,726,572 Feb. 23, 1988
Codos 5,868,383 Feb. 9, 1999
The Rejections
Claims 1-12, 14-19, 21-41, 43-48 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Codos.
Claims 13 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Codos in view of Flesher.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(mailed July 5, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections
and to the appellants’ brief (filed June 8, 2005) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007