Ex Parte Biggie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2013

11164314 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN J. BIGGIE, LYDIA BIGGIE, and
JOHN GILLIS
____________________

Appeal 2011-013690
Application 11/164,314
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
PATRICK R. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-013690
Application 11/164,314

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an adjustable width bariatric transport
support surface. Claims 1, 15, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. An adjustable width support surface, for use
with adjustable width bed frames or bed frames of
fixed, but various widths, comprising:
a plurality of inflatable air cells defining the
support surface in its entirety and each including
an inflatable central section, the plurality of
inflatable air cells each further having at least one
independently controllable compartment connected
to and extending from a lateral end of the
inflatable central section; and
a controller communicating with the at least
one independently controllable compartment, the
controller selectively varying a width of the entire
support surface by inflating or deflating the at least
one independently controllable compartment.

PRIOR ART
Ellis US 6,021,533 Feb. 8, 2000

GROUNDS OF REJECTION
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as
anticipated by Ellis.
Appeal 2011-013690
Application 11/164,314

3
2. Claims 3, 7-14, and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ellis.

OPINION
The Examiner finds that Ellis discloses each and every limitation of
independent claim 1. In particular, the Examiner identifies Ellis’ surface
cushions 40, 44 and 46 as the plurality of inflatable air cells. See Ans. 3.
However, the Examiner
notes Figure 1 of Ellis and the disclosure of Ellis
[which states that] ‘[s]upport surface bladders 38
are located on top of bladders 32, 34, and 36
within interior region 18. Support surface
cushions 38 include a head cushion 40, a chest
cushion 42, a seat cushion 44, and a foot cushion
46. Support cushions 40, 44, and 46 include inner
bladder sections 48 and outer bladder sections 50
and 51 which are separately controllable from an
air supply source as discussed below.’
Ans. 4 (quoting Ellis, col. 5, ll. 24-30).
Appellants argue that air cells 40, 44 and 46 “do not define the
support surface ‘in its entirety’ as the surface also includes chest support
surface cushion 42.” App. Br. 13-14; see also Reply Br. 1-2. In response to
Appellants’ argument, the Examiner determines that “[t]here is nothing in
Appellant[]s[’] claim that ties the ‘support surface in its entirety’ to span the
entire length of the mattress.” Ans. 8. The Examiner provides the following
two examples in support of this determination:
1. If the patient was on their hands and knees. Ans. 9.
2. If the patient was a baby placed at the foot of the bed. See id.
Appeal 2011-013690
Application 11/164,314

4
Neither of these examples is persuasive because the elements that
define the entirety of the support surface are not dependent on the user or the
use to which the support surface is put. With respect to the Examiner’s first
example, the fact that one or more air cells (i.e., cushion 42) might not be
used when the user is in a particular configuration (on their hands and knees)
does not preclude that air cell from still being a part of Ellis’ support surface.
The Examiner’s second example is not persuasive as the rejection explicitly
includes cushion 40 as part of the support surface. Further, by quoting Ellis’
description of support surface cushions 38 (which include cushions 40, 42,
44, and 46) in the statement of the rejection the Examiner essentially
concedes that cushion 42 is part of the support surface.
Appellants further argue, “it would be impossible with the Ellis
structure to adjust a width of its support surface by outer bladder sections 50,
51 as at least the chest cushion 42 would maintain its width.” App. Br. 14;
Reply Br. 3. We agree. As discussed supra, given that the rejection
includes Eliot’s cushion 42 as part of the support surface it is unreasonable
in the context of a rejection based on anticipation to exclude cushion 42 as
part of the support surface; and, given that cushion 42 does not include outer
bladder sections 50 and 51, the width of the entire support surface cannot be
varied “by inflating or deflating the at least one independently controllable
compartment,” as required by claim 1.
For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 and claims 2-14 as anticipated by Ellis. Claims 15 and 18 similarly require
“varying the width of the support surface in its entirety by deflating or
inflating the independently controllable compartments” and “varying a width
of the entire support surface inflating or deflating the independently
Appeal 2011-013690
Application 11/164,314

5
controllable compartments.” App. Br. 22. Accordingly, we cannot sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 18 and claims 16, 17 and 19-22,
which depend therefrom as anticipated by Ellis.
The Examiner alternatively rejects claims 3, 7-14, and 17-22 as
unpatentable over Ellis. The Examiner finds that “[u]sing a separate line for
each section is considered a disclosure that each separate section is
independently controllable.” Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes, “it would be
obvious to independently control any section of the entire bed as this is a
well known way in the art to be able to put an inflatable bed in various
arrangements.” Id.
The Examiner’s reasoning does not cure the deficiencies in Ellis
discussed supra. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 3, 7-14, and 17-22 as unpatentable over Ellis.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-22 are REVERSED.

REVERSED

Klh