Appeal No. 2006-0714 Page 4
Application No. 10/238,083
the plurality of springs has a substantially uniform height, although springs of different
heights may also be used” (column 11, lines 19-21).
Based on the teachings of Codos, as cited above, one of ordinary skill in the art
of innersprings would certainly have found a suggestion to use coil lengths of less than
the eight and one quarter inches and eight and three quarter inches specified by Codos,
to form concavities, for example. What is lacking in the examiner’s rejection, however,
is any evidence as to the degree of variance from the particular coil lengths cited by
Codos that would have been suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art of
innersprings and, more particularly, whether such a person would have found
suggestion in Codos’ teachings to use a coil within the range of six and three quarters to
seven and one half inches, as called for in the claims.
The examiner’s rationale in rejecting claims 1-12, 14-19, 21-41, 43-48 and 50 as
being unpatentable over Codos is set forth on page 3 of the answer as follows.
It is well known in the art to design coil springs according to
the desired mattress height and spring characteristics. It
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to determine the coil spring
height of Codos through routine design and experimentation
to provide the optimal spring characteristics for the intended
use.
Discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable is ordinarily within the
skill of the art. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980)
and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). However,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007