Ex parte Crowell

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 4, 1999

08544299 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 4, 1999)

Application for patent filed October 17, 1995.1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JANET C. CROWELL
__________
Appeal No. 98-0198
Application No. 08/544,2991
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before CALVERT, ABRAMS and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner
finally rejecting claims 1 through 19, which constitute all of
the claims of record in the application.
Appeal No. 98-0198
Application No. 08/544,299
2
The appellant's invention is directed to a bed sheet.
The subject matter before us on appeal is illustrated by
reference to claim 1, which reads as follows:
1. A connected bed sheet assembly comprising
A bottom sheet having a first end and a second end with
said first end and said second end in opposed generally
parallel relation, and having a first edge and a second edge
with said first edge and said second edge in opposed generally
parallel relation; and
A top sheet having a first end and a second end with said
first end and said second end in opposed generally parallel
relation, and having a first edge and a second edge with said
first edge and said second edge in opposed generally parallel
relation, with said first end of said top sheet connected to
said first edge of said bottom sheet with said first edge of
said top sheet connected to said first edge of said bottom
sheet along a substantial majority of the length of said first
edges, with said second end of said top sheet free from
connection to said second end of said bottom sheet, and with
said second edge of said top sheet free from connection to
said second edge of said bottom sheet through a substantial
majority of the length of said second edges.
THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Crockett 3,962,739 Jun. 15,
1976
Mendyk 4,241,466 Dec. 30,
1980
Appeal No. 98-0198
Application No. 08/544,299
Translation attached.2
3
Kawtoski 5,177,821 Jan. 12,
1993
French patent (Reverger) 2,608,031 Jun. 17,2
1988
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(1) Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-11 and 13 on the basis of the French
reference and Mendyk.
(2) Claims 4, 12, 14 and 17 on the basis of the French
reference, Mendyk and Crockett.
(3) Claims 7 and 8 on the basis of the French reference,
Mendyk and Kawtoski.
(4) Claims 15, 16, 18 and 19 on the basis of the French
reference, Mendyk, Crockett and Kawtoski
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
Appeal No. 98-0198
Application No. 08/544,299
4
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims, and the respective views of the
examiner and the appellant as set forth in the Answer and the
Brief. As a result of our review, we have determined that
none of the rejections should be sustained. Our reasoning in
support of this conclusion follows.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
examiner to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to
combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must
stem from some teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior
art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's
Appeal No. 98-0198
Application No. 08/544,299
5
disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1052 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988). The objective of the
appellant’s invention is to provide a bottom and top sheet
combination that is very easy to install upon a mattress, even
if the bed is against a wall. The essence of the invention,
in the language of claim 1, is that the bottom and top sheets
are attached together along their bottom edges and along “a
substantial majority” of the length of one of their side
edges, while being “free from connection” along “a substantial
majority” of the length of the other of their side edges. The
French reference also teaches attaching together bottom and
top sheets. However, while the sheets are attached together
at their bottom ends, as is the appellant’s arrangement, both
of their side edges are attached along “the lower half”
(translation, page 3), which differs from the appellant’s
invention. Mendyk is directed to a safety sheet system in
which the bottom and top sheets are not attached together at
either the top or the bottom ends, but are attached together
along the full length of both of their side edges. It is the
Appeal No. 98-0198
Application No. 08/544,299
6
examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to modify the sheets disclosed in
the French reference to conform to the claim requirements
noted above, in view of the teachings of Mendyk.
From our perspective, however, even if motivation exists
for combining the teachings of the French reference with those
of Mendyk, the most that would have been suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art is attaching the sheets of the
French reference together along the entirety of both side
edges. Thus, the teachings of these two references fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the basic subject matter that is present in all of the claims
before us. The addition of Crockett and/or Kawtoski to this
combination does not alleviate this shortcoming.
None of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 98-0198
Application No. 08/544,299
7
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge)
bae
Appeal No. 98-0198
Application No. 08/544,299
8
Ronald B. Sefrna
Sefrna and Associates
505 South Bois D’Arc
P.O. Box 567
Tyler, TX 75710