Ex Parte Newton - Page 13


                Appeal 2006-3343                                                                             
                Application 10/372,564                                                                       
           1          II.  The Rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being                        
           2    Unpatentable over Chamberlain, Denesuk, and Albin.                                           
           3          The Examiner has found that Albin teaches a hypoallergenic cover for                   
           4    an animal mattress.  (Answer, p. 5., ll. 15-16).  The Examiner concludes that                
           5    it would have been obvious to use the hypoallergenic fabric of Albin to                      
           6    prevent allergy.  (Id. ll. 17-21).                                                           
           7          The Appellant urges that Albin fails to cure the deficiencies of                       
           8    Chamberlain and Denesuk relating to non-woven stabilized non-stretch                         
           9    garment interfacing fabric, and teaches away by including woven fabrics.                     
          10    (Br. p. 23, ll. 9-12).                                                                       
          11          As discussed above, the combination of Chamberlain and Denesuk                         
          12    render the claimed non-woven stabilized non-stretch garment interfacing                      
          13    fabric obvious.                                                                              
          14          As regards the argument relating to teaching away, it is noted that                    
          15    Albin is relied upon by the Examiner to show that hypoallergenic materials                   
          16    allow “any animal, no matter how sensitive, can use the mattress without                     
          17    experiencing any dermatological consequences.” (3:50-54).                                    
          18          Albin is not relied upon for the woven/nonwoven nature of the                          
          19    covering fabric.  The choice of woven versus nonwoven is a choice of one                     
          20    type from a known genus of two types of known fabrics.                                       
          21          Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Albin teaches away from the                     
          22    claimed invention by utilizing a mesh fabric.                                                
          23          We affirm this rejection as it relates to claim 10 of the instant                      
          24    application.                                                                                 



                                                     13                                                      

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013