Appeal No. 2006-3197
Application No. 10/302,215
case of conventional springs (we note that Jackson is silent as to whether the
increasing pressure of conventional springs is linear or not). Thus, we do
not find that Jackson teaches that the load member has a nonlinear expansion
force characteristic. We do not find evidence of record to support the
examiner’s assertion that inflating the bag item 36 will create a nonlinear
expansion force. Thus, we do not find that Jackson teaches all of the
limitations of independent claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C . §
102(b).
The examiner rejects dependent claims 2 through 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Christoffers. Claims
2 through 11 ultimately depend upon claim 1. The examiner has not
asserted, nor do we find that Christoffers teaches modifying a folding
machine such as Jackson to use a load member which has a nonlinear
expansion characteristic.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 2
through 11 for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007