Span-America Medical Systems, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 10, 2020

2020000166 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 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.
15/257,234 09/06/2016 Wanda C. McKnight SAM-312CON2DV1 5931
22827 7590 07/10/2020
DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449
EXAMINER
SAFAVI, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/10/2020 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 2020-000166
Application 15/257,234
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 25–28 and 30–32.2 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 and 29 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-000166
Application 15/257,234

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 25, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below and is
representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
25. A method for the treatment and prevention of decubitus
ulcers for a patient due to interface of such patient with an
associated support surface, comprising:
placing adjacent a patient a first layer of vapor-permeable
material;
providing a second layer of non-crushable, three-
dimensional material, adjacent and beneath said first layer of
vapor-permeable material; and
forcing air flow through said second layer of non-
crushable, three-dimensional material, so that moisture vapor
and heat travels away from a patient’s body through said first
layer of vapor-permeable material and into said second layer of
non-crushable, three-dimensional material, to be carried away
from the patient by said forced air flow, so as to reduce
moisture and heat near a patient’s skin without directly
exhausting air across the patient’s skin.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Wilkerson US 5,882,349 Mar. 16, 1999
Maier US 6,223,369 B1 May 1, 2001
Appeal 2020-000166
Application 15/257,234

3
THE REJECTIONS3
I. Claims 25–28, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Wilkerson.4 Final Act. 3–4.
II. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wilkerson and Maier. Id. at 4–5.

OPINION
Rejection I – Claims 25–28, 31, and 32 as anticipated by Wilkerson
In rejecting independent claim 25, the Examiner finds that Wilkerson
discloses a method for treating and preventing decubitus ulcers that includes,
in relevant part,
providing a second layer of non-crushable, three-
dimensional material 110, adjacent and beneath said first layer
of material, and
forcing air flow (via air control system 140) through said
second layer, so that moisture vapor and heat travels away from
a patient’s body through said first layer and into said second
layer, to be carried away from the patient by said air flow, so as
to reduce moisture and heat near a patient’s skin without
directly exhausting air across the patient’s skin.
Final Act. 3 (citing Wilkerson, col. 3, ll. 37–59).

3 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite. See Ans. 3; Final Act. 2.
4 The Examiner states that the claims stand “rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. [§] 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilkerson.” Final Act. 3.
Because “[t]he present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first
to inventor provisions,” the relevant statute is pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 as set
forth on page 2 of the Final Action. Id. at 2 (emphasis added). Wilkerson’s
publication date of Mar. 16, 1999 is more than one year prior to the earliest
effective filing date of Appellant’s invention, which is July 18, 2000. Thus,
Wilkerson qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appeal 2020-000166
Application 15/257,234

4
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs because “[no] air flow in the
context of the presently claimed subject matter takes place through alleged
second layer 110 of Wilkerson. Instead, moisture in essence wicks
(‘capillary action’) through layer 110 into side channels 120 and 122.”
Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). Appellant asserts that “the only ‘forced
air flow’ . . . is undeniably only in the lateral channels 120 and 122.” Id.
(citing Wilkerson, Fig. 5) (emphasis omitted). Appellant contends that
Wilkerson’s “air flow is clearly not through either layer 110 or the marginal
portions of layer 110 which might be considered as forming loops 120 and
122.” Id. (emphasis omitted). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
finding as to the disclosure of Wilkerson is deficient.
Wilkerson discloses 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
discloses 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 “the second layer of Wilkerson . . . does allow airflow therethrough and
does allow airflow through said second layer by virtue of air flow through
each of 120 and 122.” Ans. 6. However, Appellant persuasively asserts that
the air flow in Wilkerson is “only in the lateral channels 120 and 122,
running parallel to the placement of a patient, and are not through any
asserted second layer.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). In other words,
Appeal 2020-000166
Application 15/257,234

5
Wilkerson’s disclosure that air flows through channels 120 and 122, which
are formed by rolling and sealing the edges of layer 110, is indicative of
airflow along the Examiner-identified second layer 110, not through it as
required by claim 25. Wilkerson does not disclose 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.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant apprises us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that Wilkerson anticipates claim 25. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 25, and claims 26–28, 31, and 32
depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wilkerson.

Rejection II – Claim 30 as unpatentable over Wilkerson and Maier
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 30, which depends from claim 25,
relies on the same finding as to the disclosure of Wilkerson that we find
deficient for the reasons discussed above in connection with Rejection I. See
Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner relies on Maier for teaching additional
features, but does not articulate any findings or reasoning that would cure
the aforementioned deficiency in the disclosure of Wilkerson. Accordingly,
for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wilkerson and
Maier.

Appeal 2020-000166
Application 15/257,234

6
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
25–28, 31, 32 102(b) Wilkerson 25–28, 31,
32
30 103(a) Wilkerson, Maier 30
Overall Outcome 25–28, 30–
32

REVERSED