Ex Parte Newton - Page 10


                Appeal 2006-3343                                                                             
                Application 10/372,564                                                                       
           1    made to combine the non-stretchy polyester pet bed outer covering of                         
           2    Denesuk with Chamberlain’s fitted sheet.                                                     
           3          The Appellant additionally urges that interfacing fabric is known only                 
           4    for purses, draperies, craft projects, buttonholes and waistbands but such                   
           5    substitution “is clearly not suitable for the purpose intended of the bed sheet              
           6    for human occupancy of Chamberlain.”  (Br. p. 13, l. 4-8).                                   
           7          This contention is without merit.  First, the Appellant has put forth no               
           8    persuasive evidence that interfacing fabric is not suitable for the bed sheet of             
           9    Chamberlain.  We have only attorney argument on this point, which is not                     
          10    evidence.   Second, as pointed out by the Examiner, pets have been known to                  
          11    sleep on twin or queen sized beds (Answer, p. 4, ll. 1-6).  Thirdly, the                     
          12    Appellant has stated that interfacing fabric is known in upholstery                          
          13    (Specification, p. 6, l. 3), which contradicts the Appellant’s more limited                  
          14    assertion.                                                                                   
          15          The Appellant next urges, inter alia, that the prior art must suggest the              
          16    desirability of the claimed invention.  (Brief, p. 13, l. 9 - p. 18, l. 25).  This           
          17    restrictive viewpoint on the standard of obviousness has been deemed                         
          18    incorrect by the United States Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex.                             
          19          When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives                   
          20          and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same                
          21          field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a                
          22          predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same                
          23          reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a                      
          24          person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would                      
          25          improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is                        
          26          obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.                      
          27          Sakraida and Anderson's-Black Rock are illustrative—a court must                       
          28          ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior                  


                                                     10                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013