Appeal No. 2006-1670 Page 6
Application No. 10/336,729
As illustrated in Figure 2 and described in col. 3, ll. 27-29, a fastener 18 is “attached to
the periphery of the upper panel 16” as called for in claim 45 and “is the cooperating opposite
part of the fastener 14,” which, as illustrated in Figure 2 and described in col. 3, ll. 10-11, “is
disposed about the periphery of the mattress,” the fastener 18 thus also being adapted to engage a
second fastener portion (fastener 14) to be located on side surfaces of the mattress, as called for
in claim 45. The fasteners 14, 18, which may be opposite sides of a zipper, for example, engage
and interlock in the form of a continuous, separable fastener. We note, in this regard, that the
claim does not require that the continuous fastener to be formed be continuous about the entire
periphery of the mattress.
The appellants also argue that the upper panel 16 of Ghanem is not “padded.” In light of
our discussion above, it should be apparent that we consider Ghanem’s “absorbent porous upper
panel” (col. 4, ll. 23-24) to be “padded” as supported by the appellants’ original disclosure.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art of bed sheets would have understood from
Ghanem’s description of the bed sheets as capable of being “used in a protective mode [with the
water-proof minor panel] or a comfort mode [without the minor panel]” (col. 2, ll. 30-31) and
made of “woven or knitted cotton” (col. 3, ll. 4-5 and 29-30) that the upper panel is soft so as to
provide comfort. A soft bed sheet panel that is described as “absorbent” falls within the
definition of “padded” set forth above.
In light of the above, the appellants’ arguments fail to persuade us that the examiner has
erred in rejecting claim 45 as being anticipated by Ghanem. We thus sustain the rejection of
claim 45, as well as claims 27-29, 31, 34-44, 46, 47 and 49-51 which stand or fall therewith, as
being anticipated by Ghanem.
With respect to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 16-21, 23-25, 27,
28, 31, 34-36, 38, 42-47 and 49-51 as being unpatentable over Ghanem in view of Blake, the
appellants have argued all of the claims together. Accordingly, we select claim 45 as the
representative claim to decide the appeal of this rejection, with the remainder of the claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007