Appeal No. 97-3197 Page 6
Application No. 08/418,021
The Obviousness Issue
We do not sustain the rejections of claims 5 through 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 5, the only independent claim on appeal, recites a
music emitting pillow comprising, inter alia, a head depression,
a neck support channel, a music producing means and a pressure
activated switch for turning off and on the music producing means
in response to changes in pressure upon the head depression.
In our opinion, the combined teachings of all the applied
prior art (i.e., Boos, Fry, Ramey and Johenning) would not have
been suggestive of providing a pressure activated switch for
turning off and on a music producing means in response to changes
in pressure upon the head depression part of the pillow.
Contrary to the examiner's determination, we do not believe that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007