Appeal No. 97-1444 Page 3
Application No. 08/394,499
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
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).
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 7-9) that the claimed
limitations regarding stiffness are not suggested by the applied
prior art. We agree.
Independent claim 1 recites that the mat is provided with
"sufficient stiffness to prevent wrapping around a child, to
thereby prevent suffocation." Claim 8, the other independent
claim on appeal recites that the bottom layer imparts "sufficient
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007