Appeal No. 2006-1667
Application No. 10/775,634
The appellant argues that the examiner’s motivation to
combine Gordon and Pepe to achieve a constant pressure
distribution over the length of the mattress is not the problem
solved by the appellant (brief, page 17). As pointed out above,
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness does not require
that references be combined for the purpose of solving the
problem solved by the appellant. The references would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, combining
their teachings to provide a relatively constant pressure
distribution over the length or width of Gordon’s inflatable
bladder (Pepe, col. 2, lines 61-65). Hence, contrary to the
appellant’s argument (brief, page 17), combining the references
does not require impermissible hindsight.
The appellant argues that Pepe does not disclose a material
and constitution for maintaining the convex shape under the
weight of a mattress and a person, and that “merely achieving
constant pressure distribution over the length of the mattress is
insufficient to produce and maintain the claimed convex shape
under the weight of the mattress and a person” (brief, page 17).
What is required by the independent claims from which claims 6
and 12 depend is maintaining a substantially convex cross-
sectional shape. Pepe discloses that even with a person lying on
the inflatable pad, the cells in the central region are higher
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013