Appeal No. 2006-1667
Application No. 10/775,634
Claims 4, 5, 10 and 11
Reeder discloses a mattress structure that is customized for
the individual user and can be assembled by the user from a kit
or can be assembled at the factory or some assembly location
based upon the user’s reaction to a test mattress at the point of
sale (col. 1, lines 16-25). The core (88) of the mattress
structure can include an air bladder (96) having I-beams (218,
219) therein with varied heights forming varied air pocket (224,
224’) heights that provide additional support and firmness for
the portions of the user’s body adjacent to the taller air
pockets (col. 22, lines 36-63; col. 23, lines 17-23 and 44-51;
figures 12, 14 and 15).
The appellant argues that customized areas of support is not
the problem solved by the appellant (brief, page 15). To
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, references need not
be combined for the purpose of solving the problem solved by the
appellant. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309,
1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688,
693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert.
denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Reeder would have fairly suggested,
to one of ordinary skill in the art, using Reeder’s I-beams
having varied heights in Gordon’s bladder to provide the benefit
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013