Appeal No. 2006-0714 Page 3
Application No. 10/238,083
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the following determinations.
Claim 1 is representative of the appellants’ invention and reads as follows:
1. A helical wire form coil comprising a center
convolution, at least two intermediate convolutions which
extend from the center convolution, and an end convolution
attached to each intermediate convolution, the coil having a
length measured from one end convolution to an opposite
end convolution in a range of six and three quarters to seven
and one half inches, and being able to be compressed
axially by a force in a range of 1.55 to 1.95 pounds per inch.
There does not appear to be any dispute that Codos discloses all of the features
of appellants’ independent claims, with the exception of the recited length within a range
of six and three quarters to seven and one half inches. Codos discloses coil lengths of
eight and three quarter inches (Figures 3, 4 and 7,8) and eight and one quarter inches
(Figures 5, 6). These are the only coil lengths specified by Codos. Codos teaches that
“[a] mattress or cushion may further be formed with one or more concave areas, such
as concave regions by springs of different heights or by varying the spatial orientation of
the connective matrix, or both” (column 11, lines 8-12) and that, “[p]referably, each of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007