Appeal 2006-3343
Application 10/372,564
1 The Appellant first urges that that the disclosure of Chamberlain must
2 be read as teaching away from the claimed invention in that Chamberlain is
3 limited to conventional human bed sheet fabric material and no other. (Br.
4 8, ll. 10-21). The foundation for this argument is that the sizes of the
5 Chamberlain mattresses are said to be between twin and queen size and there
6 is absolutely no other alternative for the fabric.
7 We find this argument unpersuasive - the Appellant is reading
8 Chamberlain’s disclosure much too narrowly.
9 First, we observe that Chamberlain states that the sheet “is formed of
10 conventional fabric material and includes a peripheral elastic band 12 sewn
11 onto the sheet to allow snug fitting at the corners of a bed.” (2:4-7).
12 Chamberlain is not limited, as Appellant urges, to “conventional bed sheet
13 fabrics” - Chamberlain’s description literally encompasses all conventional
14 fabric materials.
15 Second, Chamberlain states that “the overall dimensions of the sheet
16 are offered only as examples of the concept and are not limiting as to the
17 construction of the sheet.” (2:11-12). The description of between twin and
18 queen reference particular embodiments (Fig. 2 and Fig. 1) which are said
19 not to be limiting. Accordingly, the argument that the size of the mattresses
20 of Chamberlain limits the fabric to those normally used in human beds is
21 unconvincing.
22 Therefore, we do not agree with the Appellant that Chamberlain
23 teaches away from the claimed invention.
24 The Appellant next urges that Denesuk fails to teach an “interfacing
25 fabric” (Br. p. 11, ll. 16-22). However, as the Examiner pointed out,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013