Appeal No. 2006-0948
Application No. 10/354,756
Rejection over Wooldridge in view of Withoff
Claims 1, 2 and 4 through 13 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Wooldridge in view
of Withoff.
We note that this rejection uses the reference to
Wooldridge as the primary reference. According to the
examiner,
Wooldridge et al. disclose a method for
assembling padded materials comprising feeding
padding material between guide rollers 38 and
114; unrolling a web of insulator material 100
around guide roller 114; uncutting [sic, cutting]
between assemblies with knife 56; roll packing
the padded product.
Wooldridge does not directly disclose
folding material around end turns of springs
however Withoff teach spring assembly
construction with spring insulator material 24
folded around end turn of spring 14 with an
adhesive; see figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the folding
step of the mattress construction of Withoff in
the invention to Wooldridge as it is well known
in the art to hide the outermost end turn of
springs in spring mattresses. (Answer, page 4).
Appellant’s principal argument regarding this
combination is that “there is no teaching, suggestion or
inference in the Wooldridge et al. patent of a spring
assembly at all . . . there is no way that it would be
obvious to wrap insulator material around the end turns of
coil springs. The coil springs aren't there.” (Brief,
paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10). This position is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007