Appeal No. 2006-1667
Application No. 10/775,634
than the cells at the ends (col. 5, lines 46-53; figure 16).2
Hence, the pad still has a substantially convex overall shape,
tapering from the central region toward the ends. Thus, it
reasonably appears that Pepe’s inflatable pad would maintain its
convex shape at least under the weight of a lightweight mattress
and a lightweight person such as an infant.
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the
examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 12.
Remand
We remand the application for the examiner and the appellant
to address on the record whether the combined disclosures of
Gordon, Reeder and Pepe would have rendered obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art under 35 U.S.C. § 103 the subject
matter of claims 1-3 and 7-9.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3, 7-9 and 13-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Gordon is reversed as to claims 1-3
and 7-9 and affirmed as to claims 13-18. The rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 4, 5, 10 and 11 over Gordon in view of
Reeder, and claims 6 and 12 over Gordon in view of Pepe, are
2 Pepe states, regarding figure 16, that “[t]he cell upper surface is shown at
52 without any body weight thereon, and numeral 53 indicates the cell upper
surface contour when deflected downwardly by body weight” (col. 5, lines 47-
50). Numeral 53 is omitted from figure 16. It reasonably appears that
numeral 53 should correspond to the curve in figure 16 with less convexity
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013