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