10752709 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

Ex Parte Hayes

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 27, 2012

10752709 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte JOHN H. HAYES ________________ Appeal 2010-000578 Application 10/752,709 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JAMES P. CALVE and RICHARD E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 2 decision finally rejecting claims 1-8. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 7 3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seiler (US 4 4,947,500, issued Aug. 14, 1990) and Boyd (US 6,253,401 B1, issued Jul. 3, 5 2001); and rejects claims 4 and 6 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over6 1 The Appellant is the real party in interest. Appeal 2010-000578 Application 10/752,709 2 Seiler, Boyd and Hovis (US 4,867,140, issued Sep. 19, 1989). We have 1 jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2 We REVERSE. 3 Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1 recites, with italics added 4 for emphasis: 5 1. A mattress system, comprising: 6 a mattress having a top surface and a bottom 7 surface; 8 a cavity arranged in the mattress, the cavity 9 being open at the top surface and having a defined 10 size; 11 an expandable cushion arranged in the 12 cavity; 13 a mattress protector covering at least the top 14 surface of the mattress, the protector including a 15 first portion that extends into the cavity and a 16 second portion that extends over the expandable 17 cushion arranged in the cavity; and 18 a control system operatively coupled with 19 the cushion to control an expansion and 20 contraction of the cushion in order to maintain a 21 cushion pressure in accordance with a weight of a 22 user in proportion to a firmness of the mattress, 23 wherein the control system includes a fluidic pump 24 arranged to pump fluid into the expandable 25 cushion, a fluid relief mechanism arranged to 26 allow fluid to escape the expandable cushion, and 27 a fluid pressure switch operable to automatically 28 maintain a defined pressure level in the 29 expandable cushion. 30 Claim 8 includes limitations similar to the last indented limitation of claim 1. 31 Seiler describes a mattress for preventing or curing decubitus ulcers. 32 (Seiler, col. 1, ll. 9-11). The mattress includes air cushions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 33 Appeal 2010-000578 Application 10/752,709 3 arrayed in two groups, each group including air cushions aligned parallel to 1 the length of the mattress. (Seiler, col. 3, ll. 15-22 and fig. 2). The mattress 2 also includes a pumping station 18 for inflating and deflating the cushions. 3 (Seiler, col. 3, ll. 32-36 and col. 3, l. 66 – col. 4, l. 2). A programmable 4 control device 17 controls the inflation and deflation of the air cushions 4, 5, 5 6, 7, 8, 9 by the pumping station 18. (Id.) Seiler teaches treating decubitis 6 ulcers by cyclically inflating and deflating each of the two lines of cushions 7 so as to periodically tilt the patient. (Seiler, col. 4, ll. 11-38). 8 Boyd describes an air mattress 11 including a plurality of air 9 chambers 13, 15, 17 and an air pump 21 operatively connected to the air 10 chambers. (Boyd, col. 2, ll. 37-39 and 43-46). The air mattress 11 also 11 includes a manually operable control 31 for controlling the operation of the 12 air pump 21. The manually operable control 31 includes inflate and deflate 13 switches 33, 35 for inducing the pump to inflate or deflate the air chambers 14 13, 15, 17. (Boyd, col. 2, ll. 52-60). The manually operable control 31 also 15 includes an air pressure gauge 41 with a display 43 for displaying the 16 measured pressure in various air chambers 13, 15, 17. (Boyd, col. 2, l. 66 – 17 col. 3, l. 2). A memory 45 in the manually operable control 31 records 18 desired pressure for each air chamber 13, 15, 17 so that the user may 19 reinflate the air chambers to desired pressures. (Boyd, col. 3, ll. 11-14). 20 The Examiner finds that Seiler “fails to disclose the control system 21 maintaining the pressure within the cushion.” (Ans. 4). On the other hand, 22 the Examiner finds that “Boyd discloses a control system that maintains the 23 pressure within a cushion.” (Id.) In support of the latter finding, the 24 Examiner cites a passage spanning column 2, line 66 through column 3, line 25 13 of Boyd. (Id.; see also Ans. 5-6 and 7). This passage does not support 26 Appeal 2010-000578 Application 10/752,709 4 the Examiner’s finding. At most, the passage teaches recording desired 1 pressures in a memory 45 to permit a user to reinflate the air cushions 13, 2 15, 17 to desired pressures. The passage is silent as to maintaining pressure 3 levels in the air chambers 13, 15, 17. 4 The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to employ a 5 control system as taught by Boyd in order for the user to conveniently 6 maintain desired pressures (col. 3 lines 12-13)” (Ans. 4), presumably as a 7 substitute for the programmable control device 17 described by Seiler. Had 8 one of ordinary skill in the art done so, the control system as taught by Boyd 9 would not have been capable of automatically maintaining a defined 10 pressure level in an expandable cushion. 11 The Examiner provides no further reasoning to explain why one of 12 ordinary skill in the art might have had apparent reason to modify Boyd’s 13 manually operable control 31 so as to provide the control with the capacity 14 to perform the functional limitations recited in claims 1 and 8. Therefore, 15 we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 8 under § 103(a) as 16 being unpatentable over Seiler and Boyd. 17 The Examiner cites Hovis as disclosing “an inflatable device having a 18 reservoir 62 and employing a liquid.” (Ans. 4). This teaching does not 19 remedy the deficiency in the teachings of Seiler and Boyd as applied to the 20 subject matter of claims 4 and 6. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 21 and 6 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seiler, Boyd and Hovis. 22 23 DECISION 24 We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8. 25 REVERSED 26 Appeal 2010-000578 Application 10/752,709 5 mls 1