Appeal No. 2006-1922 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/207,519
different from the issues surrounding the design of animal bed
encasements, with the exception that they both ‘cover’
something.” It is further asserted (brief, page 5) that the
problem addressed by Pearson is to provide protection from toxic
chemicals, whereas the problem addressed by appellants is
controlling pet odors on a bed. Appellant additionally asserts
(id.) that even if Pearson is considered to be analogous art,
there is no teaching, suggestion or motive in Kostial to place an
odor receiving layer on the textile of the bedding encasement, or
to use an odor receiving layer having odor receiving particles
and a bonding adhesive.
The examiner responds (answer, page 4) that “[t]hus,
applicant has merely claimed that the odor particles contact the
interior surface.” The examiner argues (id.) that Kostial
teaches a fabric treated with an odor retardant and suggests
cedar, but does not limit it to cedar. It is argued that an
artisan would be motivated to look to teachings of other
retardants to meet engineering design parameters based on
availability and cost of cedar compared to other equivalent odor
retardants, and that Pearson teaches a known alternative textile
that contains charcoal bonded thereto by an adhesive.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007