Ex Parte GreenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201611606612 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/606,612 11/30/2006 Ronald Green 261110 Green MEDI-CON 7976 4988 7590 ALFRED M. WALKER 225 OLD COUNTRY ROAD MET.VTT.TE, NY IT747-2712 12/20/2016 EXAMINER CONLEY, FREDRICK C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3673 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2016 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RONALD GREEN Appeal 2014-0080101 Application 11/606,6122 Technology Center 3600 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, and 18.3 An oral hearing was held on December 7, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed July 29, 2013) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 30, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 29, 2014) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 3, 2013). 2 Appellant identifies “Dharma Comunications [sic], Inc.,” as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 3 Claims 3, 6—12, 14, 16, and 17 are canceled. App. Br.4. Appeal 2014-008010 Application 11/606,612 We REVERSE. CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to meditation supports, such as meditation cushions and meditation mats. Spec. 1,11. 8—10. Claims 1,13, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A cylindrically shaped meditation sitting cushion comprising: a single, upper layer of slow recovery, low resilience, temperature sensitive visco-elastic foam having a generally planar first support surface and a generally planar second surface, the first and second surfaces defining therebetween a substantially uniform thickness of about 2 to 3 inches; a lower, less compressive supporting layer consisting essentially of buckwheat hulls for providing a firm base of support, said lower compressive supporting layer having a generally planar third surface and a generally planar fourth surface, the third and fourth surfaces defining therebetween a substantially uniform thickness of about 3.5 to 6.5 inches; and a cover material enclosing said upper and lower layers. REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art (Spec., Fig. 5) (“AAPA”), Landvik (US 6,159,574, iss. Dec. 12, 2000), Yamada (US 4,064,578, iss. Dec. 27, 1977), and Tapper (US 6,141,807, iss. Nov. 7, 2000). 2 Appeal 2014-008010 Application 11/606,612 ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s reasoning for combining AAPA, Landvik, and Yamada to result in a lower layer of buckwheat hulls, as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 13 and 18, lacks rational underpinning. App. Br. 14—15. In rejecting independent claims 1,13, and 18, the Examiner finds that the combination of AAPA and Landvik fails to disclose a lower layer selected from buckwheat hulls, and relies on Yamada to cure the deficiency. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Yamada, 3:20—25). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to employ a lower layer of buckwheat hulls, as taught by Yamada, to the meditation cushion of AAPA, as modified by Landvik, to yield the predictable results of having a layer of natural materials form a cushion that prevent the interruption of blood circulation and the genesis of pressure points. Id. at 3. However, Appellant is correct in that Yamada attributes the provision of projections on an upper layer sponge mat for preventing the interruption of blood circulation to the body, not the buckwheat hulls. See App. Br. 14; see also Yamada, 4:15—24. As such, it does not follow that modifying AAPA and Landvik in view of Yamada to merely have a lower level of buckwheat hulls, without including an upper layer sponge mat with projections, would yield the predictable result of preventing the interruption of blood circulation, as the Examiner proposes. We also are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s reasoning for combining AAPA, Landvik, and Yamada to result in a single, upper layer of visco-elastic foam, as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 13 and 18, lacks sufficient rational underpinning. App. Br. 12—14. 3 Appeal 2014-008010 Application 11/606,612 In rejecting independent claims 1,13, and 18, the Examiner finds that AAPA illustrates that a meditation cushion having a cover material enclosing a meditation cushion is well known. Final Act. 2, 4. The Examiner acknowledges that AAPA fails to disclose the meditation cushion having an upper layer of slow recovery foam, and relies on Landvik to cure the deficiency. Id. (citing Landvik, 1:5, 1:46—3:9). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify AAPA’s meditation cushion to employ an upper layer of slow recovery foam, as taught by Landvik, to yield the predictable result of having the meditation cushion of AAPA “mold to the form the body, allowing pressure to be absorbed uniformly and distributed evenly across the support.” Id. (citing Landvik, 1:63—2:6). The difficulty with the Examiner’s analysis is that Landvik attributes a laminate of “at least two layers of [visco-elastic] foam adhered together” with providing pressure-relief. Landvik 1:41—44; see also id. 3:49-52 (“visco-elastic foam layers . . . [are] able to mould according to the weight and temperature of a body in contact”); see also id. 3: 64—66 (“the softest visco-elastic foam layer ... is arranged for contact with a person’s body”). And the Examiner does not adequately explain why modifying AAPA to include only one of the Landvik’s at least two visco-elastic foam layers would yield predictable results with respect to pressure relief. In view of the foregoing, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also reverse the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 15, which are not argued separately. 4 Appeal 2014-008010 Application 11/606,612 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,2, 4, 5, 13, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation