Appeal No. 2006-1667
Application No. 10/775,634
of the I-beams disclosed by Reeder, i.e., more firmness and
support adjacent to the taller air pockets (col. 22, lines 59-63;
col. 23, lines 20-23 and 44-51). Thus, contrary to the
appellant’s argument (brief, page 15), impermissible hindsight is
not required in combining the teachings of Gordon and Reeder.
The appellant argues that Gordon and Reeder would not have
suggested an inflatable mattress support having a substantially
convex cross-sectional shape that is thicker in the center region
and gradually thinner toward the edges (brief, page 15). Gordon
discloses an inflatable bladder that is convex at least from the
center region to the front and back regions (figure 3B), and
Reeder discloses a longitudinally convex series of air pockets
(col. 18, line 64 – col. 19, line 2). Reeder would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, using
longitudinally varied height air pockets in Gordon’s inflatable
bladder to obtain the benefits of the varied height air pockets
disclosed by Reeder, i.e., additional firmness and support at
longitudinal zones adjacent to the taller air pockets (col. 22,
lines 59-63). Moreover, Gordon’s teaching that the greatest
portion of a sleeper’s weight is in the center region of a
mattress rather than at the edges (col. 2, lines 38-42) would
have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
making Reeder’s I-beams taller in the center region than at the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013