Appeal No. 97-1444 Page 7
Application No. 08/394,499
It is our opinion that the combined teachings of Nisbet-
Baldwin and Heckel would have not have resulted in a mat/toy
having a rigidity that provides sufficient resistance to bending
such that the mat/toy is not capable of closely encircling a
child's head. In that regard, we view the combined teachings of
Nisbet-Baldwin and Heckel as suggesting a mat/toy that is readily
rollable such that the mat/toy would be capable of closely
encircling a child's head.
Since all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 8 are
not suggested by the applied prior art, we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejection of appealed claims 1 and 8, or claims 2
through 7 and 9 through 15 which depend therefrom, under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007