Appeal No. 2006-0714 Page 5
Application No. 10/238,083
exceptions have been found where the results of optimizing the variable are
unexpectedly good or where the parameter optimized was not recognized to be a result-
effective variable. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6, 8-9 (CCPA 1977).
In this instance, there is no indication in Codos that the height of the coil was
considered to be a result-effective variable. While Codos clearly teaches that various
coil heights can be used, as discussed above, and one of ordinary skill in the art would
have certainly understood that the spring characteristics of the coils are determined in
part by the height of the coil, Codos does not teach or suggest using overall coil height
to provide multiple spring rates. Rather, Codos discloses varying pitches and diameters
along the length of the coil to modify the spring rates. There is no indication in Codos
that the height of the coil is intended to have any consequence on the coil or the
innerspring other than coil height itself. As for coil height, as discussed above, the
examiner’s rejection is not supported by any evidence as to what range of coil heights
(or mattress or cushion heights), outside of the particular ones specified by Codos,
would have been considered desirable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In light of the above, we conclude that the evidence adduced by the examiner in
making this rejection is insufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness of the
claimed subject matter in this case. The rejection of claims 1-12, 14-19, 21-41, 43-48
and 50 as being unpatentable over Codos cannot be sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007