Span-America Medical Systems, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2020

15257388 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2020)

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.
15/257,388 09/06/2016 Wanda C. McKnight SAM-312CON2DV2 8555
22827 7590 03/31/2020
DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449
EXAMINER
SAFAVI, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USDOCKETING@DORITY-MANNING.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WANDA C. MCKNIGHT, RICHARD W. RABURN,
RUSSELL J. WESTON, and JOSEPH A. BENEDICT
____________

Appeal 2019-005061
Application 15/257,388
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 25–35.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Span-America
Medical Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of Savaria Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 1–24 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-005061
Application 15/257,388

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 25 and 34 are independent. Claim 25, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
25. A patient support system for the prevention and treatment of
decubitus ulcers, said patient support system comprising:
a foam shell defining an internal cavity for housing a
plurality of air cells;
a plurality of air cells for supporting a patient thereon, with
said air cells housed in said foam shell internal cavity;
a multi-layer mattress coverlet, said coverlet providing an
independently operable low air loss feature and received at least
in part above said foam shell with said multilayer mattress
coverlet having a top layer of vapor permeable material and a
second layer beneath said top layer and comprising a non-crush
three dimensional fabric allowing airflow therethrough; and
an external control system for respectively driving and not
driving said plurality of air cells and for separately operating said
low air loss feature of said multi-layer mattress coverlet by
selectively switching on and off a continuous airflow through
said second layer of said coverlet, so that said low air loss feature
is turned on and off as desired for treatment of a patient
independently of how said air cells are driven.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Schulman US 4,852,195 Aug. 1, 1989
Wilkinson US 5,699,570 Dec. 23, 1997
Pearce US 5,881,409 Mar. 16, 1999
Wilkerson US 5,882,349 Mar. 16, 1999
Biggie US 5,926,884 July 27, 1999
Maier US 6,223,369 B1 May 1, 2001
Rhodes US 6,273,810 B1 Aug. 14, 2001
Appeal 2019-005061
Application 15/257,388

3
THE REJECTIONS3
I. Claims 25–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Maier, Wilkerson, and Rhodes. Final Act. 3–6.
II. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Maier, Wilkerson, Rhodes, and Wilkinson. Id. at 6–7.
III. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Maier, Wilkerson, Rhodes, Wilkinson, and Pearce. Id. at 7–8.
IV. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Maier, Wilkerson, Rhodes, and Biggie. Id. at 8–9.
V. Claims 31–35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Maier, Wilkerson, Rhodes, and Schulman. Id. at 9–14.

OPINION
Rejection I – Obviousness based on Maier, Wilkerson, and Rhodes
In rejecting independent claim 25, the Examiner finds that Maier
teaches, in relevant part, “a mattress coverlet (12).” Final Act. 3. The
Examiner finds that Maier does not explicitly teach a “multi-layer mattress
coverlet having a top layer of vapor permeable material and a second layer
beneath said top layer and comprising a non-crush three dimensional fabric
allowing airflow therethrough,” as recited in the claim. Id. at 3–4.
However, the Examiner finds that Wilkerson teaches
a multi-layer mattress coverlet 102/110/104 . . . [that] allows for
moisture vapor to be carried away from the patient via a “three
dimensional non-crush” layer 110, (col. 3, lines 36–42), while
allowing for an external control system for operating said low
air loss feature of said multi-layer mattress coverlet to provide a

3 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. See Ans. 4; Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-005061
Application 15/257,388

4
continuous airflow through said second layer 110 of said
coverlet 100 (col. 3, lines 43–59).
Id. at 4. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
modify Maier’s system “by replacing the mattress coverlet (covering 12) . . .
with the mattress coverlet (100) as taught by W[ilkerson] . . . in order to
provide a more comfortable patient support surface which is capable of
preventing and treating decubitus ulcers.” Id.
Appellant argues that Wilkerson’s “layer 110 is not a layer which
allows airflow therethrough as claimed, but is a fabric which is used to move
moisture (not air) through capillary action rather than through allowed
airflow.” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted) (citing Wilkerson, col. 3, ll. 43–
59). We agree that a sustainable case of obviousness has not been
established.
Wilkerson teaches that “[s]andwiched between facing surfaces of
outer and inner layers 102 and 104 is a layer 110 of moisture-wicking
fabric.” Wilkerson, col. 3, ll. 36–37 (boldface omitted). Wilkerson teaches
that
[s]uch a fabric is multi-layered with an upper layer of a highly-
wicking, non-absorbent material, such as polyester, a middle
layer of cotton-polyester material, and a lower layer of cotton
material. The side edges of fabric layer 110 are rolled and
sealed to form parallel, generally circular channels 120 and 122
extending along the side edges of the fabric.
Id. at col. 3, ll. 39–45 (boldface omitted). The Examiner takes the position
that “layer 110 allows for air flow therethrough . . . by allowing air to flow
through the areas 120, 122 of the formed second or middle layer 110.”
Ans. 5. However, Appellant persuasively asserts that “any airflow in
channels 120 and 122 is at most parallel to and exterior to side edges of
Appeal 2019-005061
Application 15/257,388

5
observed fabric 110.” Reply Br. 6. In other words, although Wilkerson
teaches that air flows through channels 120 and 122, which are formed by
rolling and sealing the edges of layer 110, this teaching is indicative of
airflow along the Examiner-identified second layer 110, not through it as
required by claim 25. Wilkerson does not teach that air entering one set of
ends of channels 120, 122 and exiting the other set of ends of the channels
(Wilkerson, col. 3, ll. 48–50) flows through layer 110 itself.
The Examiner also takes the position that layer 110 is “formed of a
polyester layer, a cotton-polyester layer and a cotton layer, (col. 3, lines 39–
42 of Wilkerson . . . )” and “[s]uch material would allow for flow of air
therethrough.” Ans. 5. However, the Examiner’s position is not supported
by any technical reasoning or evidence of record, and, instead, appears to be
based upon a speculative assumption that the material used for layer 110
would necessarily allow airflow through it. Such speculation is insufficient
to support an obviousness conclusion. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017 (CCPA 1967) (explaining that rejections based on obviousness must
rest on a factual basis; in making such a rejection, the Examiner has the
initial burden of supplying the requisite factual basis and may not, because
of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual
basis). In sum, the Examiner has not adequately supported the finding that
Wilkerson’s layer 110 is capable of allowing the flow of air therethrough,
and consequently, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on an
insufficiently supported finding as to the scope and content of Wilkerson.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of Maier, Wilkerson, and Rhodes renders
Appeal 2019-005061
Application 15/257,388

6
obvious the subject matter of independent claim 25. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 25, and claims 26 and 27
depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maier,
Wilkerson, and Rhodes.

Rejection II–V – Obviousness based on Maier, Wilkerson, Rhodes,
and one or more of Wilkinson, Pearce, Biggie, and Schulman
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 28–33, which depend from claim
25, as well as independent claim 344 and its dependent claim 35, rely on the
same finding as to the disclosure of Wilkerson that we find deficient for the
reasons discussed above in connection with the rejection of independent
claim 25. See Final Act. 6–14. The Examiner relies on Wilkinson, Pearce,
Biggie, and Schulman for teaching additional features, but does not
articulate any findings or reasoning that would cure the aforementioned
deficiency in the combination of Maier, Wilkerson, and Rhodes.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of: claim 28 as
unpatentable over Maier, Wilkerson, Rhodes, and Wilkinson; claim 29 as
unpatentable over Maier, Wilkerson, Rhodes, Wilkinson, and Pearce; claim
30 as unpatentable over Maier, Wilkerson, Rhodes, and Biggie; and claims
31–35 as unpatentable over Maier, Wilkerson, Rhodes, and Schulman.

4 Similar to independent claim 25, independent claim 34 recites, in relevant
part, “a non-crush three-dimensional inner layer allowing airflow
therethrough.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-005061
Application 15/257,388

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
25–27 103(a) Maier, Wilkerson,
Rhodes
25–27
28 103(a) Maier, Wilkerson,
Rhodes, Wilkinson
28
29 103(a) Maier, Wilkerson,
Rhodes, Wilkinson,
Pearce
29
30 103(a) Maier, Wilkerson,
Rhodes, Biggie
30
31–35 103(a) Maier, Wilkerson,
Rhodes, Schulman
31–35
Overall Outcome 25–35

REVERSED