Ex Parte McGrath et al - Page 8




               Appeal No. 2006-1670                                                                        Page 8                
               Application No. 10/336,729                                                                                        


                      The appellants argue, on page 9 of the brief, that Ghanem’s criticism of using a moisture                  
               proof panel covering the entirety of the mattress is an express teaching away from a modification                 
               of the Blake patent.  We do not agree.  While Ghanem may also provide a suggestion to modify                      
               Blake to provide a moisture proof panel covering only a portion of the mattress, so as to maintain                
               as much air permeable area as possible for comfort, Ghanem also illustrates an alternate means                    
               of fastening the upper panel to the lower panel in a manner that is easily releasable and yet                     
               evidently more secure than the two strips of hook and loop fasteners disclosed by Blake and thus                  
               would have provided ample suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Blake by                       
               providing a fastener portion, such as one side of a zipper, on the lower panel located on side                    
               surfaces of the mattress and a fly and fastener portion, such as a mating side of a zipper, on the                
               top panel to cooperate with the fastener portion on the lower panel to securely fasten the upper                  
               panel to the lower panel about the periphery of the mattress.                                                     
                      In light of the above, we shall sustain the rejection of claim 45, as well as claims 1, 2, 5,              
               8-10, 12-15, 17-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 34-36, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47 and 49-51 which stand or                 
               fall with claim 45, as being unpatentable over Blake in view of Ghanem.                                           
                      With respect to the examiner’s rejections of claims 3 and 29 as being unpatentable over                    
               Blake in view of Ghanem or Ghanem in view of Blake further in view of Fukuroi and claims 11,                      
               13, 37 and 39 as being unpatentable over Blake in view of Ghanem or Ghanem in view of Blake                       
               further in view of O’Connell, the appellants rely on the arguments discussed above against the                    
               rejections based on Blake in view of Ghanem or Ghanem in view of Blake.  For the reasons set                      
               forth above, we do not find those arguments persuasive.  It follows that we shall sustain these                   
               rejections as well.                                                                                               













Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007