10446729 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 7, 2010)

Ex Parte Antinori

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 7, 2010

10446729 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 7, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte STEVEN J. ANTINORI ____________________ Appeal 2009-004384 Application 10/446,729 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Decided: June 7, 2010 ____________________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Steven J. Antinori (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 3-14, 75, 79 and 80. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). Appeal 2009-004384 Application 10/446,729 2 SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a coil spring mattress having an immobilized peripheral border rod, located at the upper side of the coil spring unit (Spec. 4-5: para. [0005]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A mattress comprising a single polygonal border defined between upper and lower terminal peripheral edge portions and upper and lower panels collectively defining a substantially closed chamber, said border and panels being constructed from synthetic plastic material, means for bonding said upper panel to said border upper terminal peripheral edge portion, means for bonding said lower panel to said border lower terminal peripheral edge portion, a spring unit housed substantially in said chamber, said spring unit including a plurality of springs each having opposite upper and lower loop portions positioned substantially adjacent the respective upper and lower panels, an upper peripheral border rod located substantially adjacent said upper panel, means for securing at least selective ones of said springs to said upper peripheral border rod along the periphery of said upper peripheral border rod, said spring unit being devoid of a lower peripheral border rod at said springs lower loop portions, means for peripherally interlocking said upper peripheral border rod substantially against movement relative to said border and upper panel, said upper peripheral border rod being Appeal 2009-004384 Application 10/446,729 3 substantially interlocked against lateral and longitudinal movement by an upper inner peripherally extending distorted corner of said chamber defined by said upper panel and said polygonal border in interlocking relationship with said upper peripheral border rod, and said spring unit being devoid of fabric pockets adapted to house springs. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections by the Examiner are before us for review:1 1. Claims 1, 9-14, 75, 79 and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bulloch (US 3,906,560, issued Sep. 23, 1975) in view of Visser (US 6,643,876 B2, issued Nov. 11, 2003). 2. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bulloch in view of Visser, and further in view of Clayton (US 6,339,857 B1, issued Jan. 22, 2002). 3. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bulloch in view of Visser, and further in view of Fasanella (US 3,262,135, issued Jul. 26, 1966). ISSUE The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in concluding that the combined teachings of Bulloch and Visser would have led a person 1 Although Appellant has not presented any separate arguments directed to the rejections of claims 3-8, Appellant is appealing the rejections of these claims. See App. Br. 2 (listing claims 3-8 among the claims on appeal) and 6 (expressly stating that the arguments presented apply to “dependent claims 3 through 15 and 75.”). The Examiner’s statement that the rejections of these claims “have not been presented for review in the appellant’s brief” (Supp. Ans. 2) thus is not accurate. Appeal 2009-004384 Application 10/446,729 4 having ordinary skill in the art to an upper peripheral border rod being substantially interlocked against movement by a distorted corner of a chamber, as called for in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 11, 13). ANALYSIS Claims 1, 9-14, 75, 79 and 80 Appellant contends that Bulloch describes that channel 99 is a “‘molded’ corner not a ‘distorted’ corner” as called for in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 11, 13) (emphasis added). The Examiner found that “the channels and indentations of Bulloch, Jr. serve to read upon ‘distorted’ as recited within claim 1.” (Ans. 7). Bulloch describes fabricating a foam pad for use in an inner spring mattress 30 by feeding foamable material 46 into a mold 36 to form a foamed cellular elastomeric pad 54 (col. 4, ll. 25-53). The pad 54 comprises a flat bottom or outer surface 74, an inner surface comprising a generally flat central portion 58 and a raised edge 67 (col. 6, ll. 50-53). Bulloch further describes using a mold insert including a rib 98, wherein the rib 98 is adapted to form a channel 99 along the base of an inwardly facing surface of the raised foam edge of pad 54 (col. 8, ll. 17-30 and figs. 12, 19 and 23). As Bulloch’s channel 99 is preformed by rib 98, the channel 99 is not formed by a distortion, or deformation2, of the corner, so as to constitute “a distorted corner,” as called for in claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 1. Likewise, we reverse the rejection of claims 9-14, 75, 79 and 80, which depend from claim 1. 2 See Spec. 11:8-10. Appeal 2009-004384 Application 10/446,729 5 Claims 3-8 The Examiner has not relied on Clayton or Fasanella for any teaching that would remedy the deficiency in the combined teachings of Bulloch and Visser (Final Rejection 5-6). We thus conclude that the Examiner also erred in rejecting claims 3 and 4 over Bulloch, Visser and Clayton, and claims 5-8 over Bulloch, Visser and Fasanella. CONCLUSION The Examiner has erred in concluding that the combined teachings of Bulloch and Visser would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to an upper peripheral border rod being substantially interlocked against movement by a distorted corner of a chamber, as called for in independent claim 1. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-14, 75, 79 and 80 is reversed. REVERSED mls VINCENT L. RAMIK DILLER, RAMIK & WIGHT SUITE 101 7345 MCWHORTER PLACE ANNANDALE, VA 22003