Ex Parte Augustine et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 25, 2001

08831603 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 25, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SCOTT D. AUGUSTINE and RANDALL C. ARNOLD
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-0086
Application No. 08/831,603
______________
HEARD: August 14, 2001
_______________
Before ABRAMS, FRANKFORT, and PATE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the examiner's refusal to allow
claims 26 through 34, 36 through 40, 42 through 78 and 80.
Claims 41 and 79 stand objected to. These are all the claims in
the application.
The claimed invention is directed to an inflatable thermal
blanket. Claim 26, reproduced below, is further illustrative of
the claimed subject matter.
Appeal No. 2000-0086
Application No. 08/831,603
2
26. An inflatable thermal blanket, comprising:
a base sheet with a lower layer of first material and an
upper layer of second material;
an overlaying material sheet attached to the upper layer of
the base sheet at a plurality of locations to form an inflatable
structure;
means for exhausting a thermally-controlled inflating medium
from the inflatable structure through the base sheet;
an inflation inlet for admitting a thermally-controlled
inflating medium into the inflatable structure; and
a drape, comprising an extension of the base sheet.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness are:
Kliesrath 2,110,022 Mar. 1, 1938
Kintner 3,243,827 Apr. 5, 1966
Augustine et al. 4,572,188 Feb. 25, 1986
(Augustine)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 26 through 32, 34, 36 through 40, 42 through 49, 51
through 59, 61 through 70, 72 through 78 and 80 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kliesrath in view of
Augustine. According to the examiner, Kliesrath shows an
inflatable thermal blanket formed by lower layer 54 and an upper
layer comprising the bottom sheet of bag 56. The portion of the
blanket extending beyond the bag body 56, is considered the drape
Appeal No. 2000-0086
Application No. 08/831,603
3
portion. The examiner states that Kliesrath lacks only the
attachment of the base sheet and the overlying material sheet at
a plurality of locations. The examiner is further of the opinion
that Augustine teaches attaching the base sheet and overlying
sheet at a plurality of locations. Therefore, the examiner has
concluded that it would have been obvious to have provided
Kliesrath's flat bag 56 with a series of tubes to better keep it
a relatively flat structure as opposed to ballooning up when
inflated.
Claims 33, 50, 60, and 71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kliesrath in view of Augustine and
Kintner. According to the examiner, Kintner shows making V-shape
cuts at the corner of bedding to better fit it to a bed.
Therefore, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to have done the same with Kliesrath's blanket to obtain a
similar advantage.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light
of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As a result
of this review, we have determined that the applied prior art
establishes the unpatentability of all claims on appeal.
Appeal No. 2000-0086
Application No. 08/831,603
4
Therefore, the rejections of all claims on appeal are affirmed.
Our reasons follow.
The following are our findings of fact with respect to the
scope and content of the prior art and the differences between
the prior art and the claimed subject matter. Kliesrath
discloses, in figures 7 and 8, a thermal blanket with a base
sheet formed of lower layer 54 and an upper layer of the base
sheet--the bottom sheet of bag 56. An overlying material sheet
is formed of the top sheet of bag 56 and upper layer 52.
Openings 58 are a means for exhausting a thermally controlled
inflating medium. Inlet conduit 60 provides an inflation inlet.
The portion of the blanket that extends beyond the bag 56 is
considered the claimed drape portion. According to the examiner,
Kliesrath lacks only the teaching of attaching the overlying
layer to the base sheet at a plurality of points. The examiner
is further of the view that Augustine teaches attaching the
overlying layer to the upper layer of the base at a plurality of
points.
It is our finding that the upper layer of the base sheet of
Kliesrath is attached to the overlying layer about the periphery
of the inflatable bag, which is to say, at a multiplicity of
Appeal No. 2000-0086
Application No. 08/831,603
5
points. Accordingly, it is our finding that the Kliesrath
figures 7 and 8 embodiment is anticipatory of appellants' claim
26. Consequently, we will affirm the section 103 rejection of
claim 26, and the claims falling therewith, namely, 27-32, 34-40,
42-49, 51-59, 61-70, 72-78, and 80, anticipation being the
epitome of obviousness. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794,
215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982) quoting In re Pearson, 494 F.2d
1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974) (a lack of novelty in
the claimed subject matter, e.g., as evidenced by a complete
disclosure of the invention in the prior art, is the "ultimate or
epitome of obviousness").
With respect to claims 33, 50, 60, and 71, the examiner has
cited Kintner for the teaching of making V-shaped cuts at the
corner of bedding to better fit the bedding to a bed. We are in
agreement that it would have been obvious, at the time of
appellants' invention to utilize V-shaped cuts in the corner of
Kliesrath's quilt to provide a better fit.
Appellants argue that Kliesrath's quilt is not inflatable.
We disagree. It is quite apparent that the bag of Kliesrath is
expanded to the condition shown in the figures by inflowing air.
This bag is inflatable much as a tire or the like is inflatable.
Appeal No. 2000-0086
Application No. 08/831,603
6
The examiner has given the term "inflatable" the reasonable and
customary meaning. There is no language in the argued claim that
requires any other construction. Furthermore, we disagree with
appellants' conclusion that a flexible rubber bag shown as
distended in a figure and provided with a pressurized air inlet
is not inherently inflatable. The examiner's finding of
inflatable is reasonable, and we hold that the burden has shifted
to appellants to provide evidence that the bag of Kliesrath is
not inflatable. The appellants have not done so.
Appellants argue that Kliesrath has no drape that hangs over
a portion of a person's body. On the contrary, Kliesrath is
directed to a covering for a body to control the temperature of a
person in bed. Col. 1, line 5. The quilt portion that extends
past the perimeter of the bag meets all appellants' claim
definitions of a drape, as outlined above.
Appeal No. 2000-0086
Application No. 08/831,603
7
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner's rejections of all
claims on appeal are affirmed.

AFFIRMED

NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
WILLIAM F. PATE, III )
Administrative Patent Judge )
WFP:lbg

Appeal No. 2000-0086
Application No. 08/831,603
8
TERRANCE A. MEADOR
GRAY, CARY, WARE & FREIDENRICH
401 B STREET, STE 1700
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101