Ex Parte Wang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 2008

10647814 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte CHENG CHUNG WANG
___________

Appeal No. 2008-0762
Application No. 10/647,814
Technology Center 3700
___________

Decided: July 28, 2008
___________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR and JOHN C. KERINS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5-8. These
are the only claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134 and 6(b) (2002).
Appeal 2008-0762
Application 10/647,814
The claimed invention is directed to an inflatable bed including a socket and
electric pump received in the socket. Claim 2 reproduced below, is further
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
2. An inflatable product including:
an inflatable body;
a socket built in the inflatable body;
an electric pump, including a pump body and an air outlet, connected
to the socket to pump the inflatable body, wherein the pump body is wholly
or partially located in the socket; and
a connector provided at a predetermined position of the electric pump
for connecting an external power to actuate the pump.
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Wortman.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated
by Higgs.
Claims 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Higgs
in view of Infante.
The references of record relied upon by the Examiner as evidence of
obviousness and anticipation are:
Higgs US 5,249,319 Oct. 5, 1993
Infante US 5,297,545 Mar. 29, 1994
Wortman US 5,794,289 Aug. 18, 1998

OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light of the
arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner. As a result of this review we have
reached the conclusion that the applied prior art does not establish the lack of
2
Appeal 2008-0762
Application 10/647,814
novelty or the obviousness of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, the rejections on
appeal are reversed. Our reasons follow.
Turning to Appellant’s first argument regarding the construction of the
claimed subject matter, we do not agree with Appellant that an inflatable body
should be construed as a body that is substantially sealed. Nonetheless, we reverse
the rejections on appeal because the applied references of Wortman or Higgs do
not show a socket built into an inflatable body.
First of all, we cannot construe the beds of Wortman and Higgs in their
entirety or as a whole to be the inflatable body as called for in the claims. With
respect to Wortman, the inflatable bodies are clearly the air cells. For example, the
inflatable bodies in Wortman’s Figure 1 are the air cells 44 and 46. The bed as a
whole cannot be construed as an inflatable body, as the entire bed dose not inflate.
In fact, Wortman discloses a foam framework for the air cells that Wortman terms
as cribs 34 and 36. See col. 6, ll. 10-32. Therefore, the placement of the pump in
notch 63 as shown in Figure 15 can not be considered as a socket built into the
inflatable body, in this case air cell 44 or 46.
Likewise with respect to Higgs, we cannot construe the hollow compartment
22 which contains the blower housing 24 of Higgs as a socket in the inflatable
body 28 of Higgs. The inflatable portion of Higgs is clearly the plenum 28 which
is surrounded by foam liner panels cemented together. (Higgs, col. 2, ll. 46-55).
The socket--hollow compartment 22--is formed by a cavity created in the foam and
bounded on one side by plenum 28. Thus, neither Higgs nor Wortman teaches or
suggests a socket with a built-in pump in an inflatable body.
3
Appeal 2008-0762
Application 10/647,814
The disclosure of Infante cannot remedy the defects we have found in the
rejections based on Wortman and Higgs. Consequently, all rejections on appeal
cannot be sustained.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Wortman is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated
by Higgs is reversed.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Higgs
in view of Infante is reversed.
REVERSED

JRG

QUINTERO LAW OFFICE, PC
2210 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405

4