Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellants’ brief (filed
June 3 0, 2005) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
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. For the reasons that follow, we cannot su stain
any of the examiner’s rejections.
We turn first to the rejection of independent claim 25 as being unpatentable over Davis
in view of Yamada. Davis discloses a bed provided with means for cooling, ventilating and
disinfecting the bed (p. 1, ll. 11-12). The bed comprises a support 1 upholding a box-like
casing 2, with a mattress 10 supported on the casing. Secured to the casing and
communicating with the interior of the casing is a flexible tube or pipe 3 to which a pump 4 is
connected. The mattress is somewhat narrower than the casing so that spaces 11 exist
between the edges of the mattress and deflectors 8 of the casing. Between the deflectors 8
and the mattress 10, the upper wall of the casing is perforated as shown at 12. Alternate ly or
additionally, the mattress may be perforated so that air may be pulled therethrough (p. 1, ll. 93-
95). In operation, pump 4 creates suction within the casing causing air to be drawn from
above the mattress and through the mattress (in the case of a perforated mattress) through th e
perforations 12 into the casing and out of the casing by way of pipe 3. The air is discharged
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007